Case Summary (G.R. No. 121982)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Crime: February 27, 2007. OCP Quezon City dismissal: December 18, 2007; motion for reconsideration denied December 15, 2008. Secretary of Justice affirmed dismissal: April 16, 2009; motion for reconsideration denied May 21, 2009. Petition for review to the Court of Appeals (CA): dismissed November 20, 2009; motion for reconsideration denied. Appeal to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari: decision denying the petition and affirming the CA rendered March 20, 2013.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Governing constitutional principle: separation of powers under the 1987 Philippine Constitution—courts must respect the Executive’s exclusive competence in determining probable cause except upon clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. Procedural rules: Rule 112 (preliminary investigation) and Rule 133 (circumstantial evidence) of the Rules of Court; Rule 43 (petition for review) jurisdictional limits; definition and standards for probable cause and grave abuse of discretion as developed in jurisprudence cited by the Court.
Relevant Factual Findings
Material facts established by the record include: Chase was last seen alive in the evening of February 27, 2007; several witnesses reported seeing a white Honda Civic (plate CRD 999) driven by a person identified as Philip and alleged blood smears inside and outside that vehicle; the body of Chase was found between parked cars with stab wounds—one 9 cm wound piercing the heart and another to the forearm—consistent across medico-legal reports. Security guards logged vehicle entries and discovered a bloodied cellular phone in one vehicle. Some witnesses claimed to hear cries for help and to have observed persons inside a particular car, while other witnesses and friends testified that Philip and Chase were friends and had no apparent motive to harm one another.
Forensic and Medical Evidence
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) medico-legal report and the police medico-legal report concurred that Chase sustained two stab wounds, including a 9 cm chest wound that fractured a rib and pierced the heart, establishing cause of death by stab wound to the chest.
Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) Resolution
The OCP dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, finding insufficient evidence to charge Philip with homicide or murder; circumstantial evidence did not link Philip to the crime, no sufficient motive was established, and allegations against Teodora lacked support beyond hearsay. The OCP denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Secretary of Justice Resolution
On administrative review, the Secretary of Justice affirmed the OCP dismissal. The Secretary concluded that absence of an eyewitness, lack of motive, insufficiency of circumstantial evidence, and doubts about witness identification of Philip (e.g., tinted windows, darkness) resulted in lack of probable cause to charge the respondents. The Secretary characterized remaining connections to Philip as speculative or mere suspicion.
Jurisdictional and Procedural Objection by the Court
The Supreme Court emphasized that the CA lacked appellate jurisdiction to entertain a petition for review under Rule 43 to challenge the Secretary of Justice’s determination of probable cause because the Secretary, in that context, performed an essentially executive function. The proper remedy to challenge such executive action is a special civil action for certiorari in the courts, and even then relief is available only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Standard for Judicial Intervention and Grave Abuse of Discretion
The Court reiterated settled jurisprudence: determination of probable cause to file an information is primarily within the discretion of the public prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice; courts should not interfere except where the petitioner demonstrates that the Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion—an arbitrary, despotic or capricious exercise of power so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.
Nature and Purpose of Preliminary Investigation and Probable Cause
The Court restated Rule 112’s definition and purpose of preliminary investigation: to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty. Probable cause requires facts sufficient to make it more likely than not that a crime was committed by the accused—more than bare suspicion but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The public prosecutor’s determination enjoys wide latitude.
Evaluation of Circumstantial Evidence Presented
The petitioner relied principally on circumstantial evidence. The Court applied the established test: circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain where all circumstances are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The record showed, however, that the asserted circumstances (e.g., last-seen testimony placing Chase with Philip, presence of bloodied vehicle, calls to the guards) were either unproven, equivocal, or insufficiently corroborated to produce probable cause.
Deficiencies in Witness Statements and Admissibility Issues
A critical deficiency was that many statements and affidavits were unsworn or lacked the mandatory certification required by Section 3, Rule 112 (that the administering officer personally examined the affiant and is satisfied that the affidavit was voluntarily executed and understood). Several central witnesses (Ariane, Marivic Guray, Michelle Corpus, and Monnel) had affidavits that were not properly sworn or were belated, undermining their admissibility and
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 121982)
Title, Citation, and Panel
- Case title: MARIE CALLO-CLARIDAD, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIP RONALD P. ESTEBAN AND TEODORA ALYN ESTEBAN, RESPONDENTS.
- Reported at 707 Phil. 172.
- G.R. No. 191567.
- Date of final decision: March 20, 2013.
- Opinion penned by Justice Bersamin.
- Concurrence: Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-De Castro, Villarama, Jr., and Reyes, JJ.
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Petitioner sought review by the Supreme Court of the Court of Appeals (CA) decision of November 20, 2009, which had upheld the Secretary of Justice’s April 16, 2009 resolution dismissing for lack of probable cause the complaint for murder filed against respondents Philip Ronald P. Esteban (Philip) and Teodora Alyn Esteban (Teodora).
- The petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 43, Rules of Court, in the CA after denial of reconsideration by the Secretary of Justice; the CA dismissed the petition for review and denied the motion for reconsideration.
- The petitioner invoked this Court’s certiorari review by filing a petition for review on certiorari to challenge the CA’s dismissal and to have respondents charged with murder.
Central Issue Presented
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in upholding the Secretary of Justice’s resolution finding no probable cause to charge Philip and Teodora with murder in the killing of the petitioner’s son, Chase.
Summary of Relevant Facts (Antecedents)
- Victim: the late Cheasare Armani aChasea Callo Claridad (referred to as Chase), son of petitioner Marie Callo-Claridad.
- Discovery of body: Chase’s lifeless, bloodied body was found on the evening of February 27, 2007 between vehicles parked at the carport of a residential house at No. 10 Cedar Place, Ferndale Homes, Quezon City.
- Last known company: Chase was allegedly last seen alive with respondent Philip less than an hour before discovery of his body.
- Timeline excerpts:
- Around 5:30 p.m., Chase returned home from visiting his girlfriend, Ramonna Liza aMonnela Hernandez.
- Around 7:00 p.m., Ariane (Chase’s sister) saw a white Honda Civic parked along the street; she recognized the driver as Philip and waved; Philip did not acknowledge her.
- Ariane waited and left with house helpers Marivic Guray and Michelle Corpus only after Chase had left in the white Honda Civic.
- Chase exchanged text messages with his girlfriend Monnel from 7:09 p.m. to 7:31 p.m.; one message indicated emotional distress and reference to being on the way to get tires.
- Security Guards Rodolph Delos Reyes and Henry Solis logged Philip’s arrival at 7:26 p.m. on board a white Honda Civic bearing plate CRD 999 with a male companion in the passenger seat.
- Ownership and relationships:
- The white Honda Civic plate CRD 999 was owned by Richard Joshua Ulit, who had entrusted the car to Philip, who claimed to have found a buyer.
- Ulit, Pamela Ann Que, and car shop owner Edbert Ylo attested that Philip and Chase were friends and unaware of any rift between them.
- Observations at or near crime scene:
- Around 7:30 p.m., household helpers Marivic Rodriguez and Jennylyn Buri and the latter’s ward Joei Yukoko heard someone crying "Help! Help!" but did not investigate.
- No. 10 Cedar Place was uninhabited at the time; Megaforce Security reported that the Estebans were illegally parking cars at No. 10’s carport and that only the Estebans used that carport regularly.
- At around 7:45 p.m., Teodora arrived on board a vehicle bearing plate XPN 733 as recorded in the subdivision logbook.
- At about 7:50 p.m., SG Abelardo Sarmiento Jr. noticed red streaks on the side of a Honda Civic plate JTG 333, inspected it (radio still on), checked other cars, and discovered the rear and side of the white Honda Civic plate CRD 999 smeared with blood; he saw a blood-covered cellular phone on the passenger seat and then found Chase’s body lying between parallel cars.
- The body: naked from the waist up, crumpled bloodied shirt on chest, wearing socks only.
- SG Sarmiento called for backup; SG Rene Fabe barricaded the scene; SG Solis received an anonymous call reporting a "akida" had met an accident; SG Fabe later searched but found no accident; SOCO team arrived, prepared sketch and photographs, and recovered and processed the cadaver, bloodstained t-shirt, blood smears, green nylon cord, fingerprints, wristwatch, and a bloodied Nokia N90 mobile phone.
- Autopsy and medico-legal findings:
- NBI Medico-Legal Report No. N-07-163: victim sustained two stab wounds — one on left lower chest wall, depth 9 cm, fractured 4th rib and pierced the heart; another on middle third of the forearm. Findings corroborated Police Chief Insp. Porciuncula Jr.’s Medico-Legal Report No. 131-07.
Investigative and Prosecutorial History
- Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP), Quezon City:
- Dismissed complaint in resolution dated December 18, 2007 for lack of evidence, motive, and insufficient circumstantial evidence to charge Philip with homicide or murder; found circumstantial evidence could not link Philip to the crime and identified several alternative possibilities (e.g., multiple suspects).
- Found no sufficient evidence to charge Teodora as principal, accomplice or accessory; alleged identification of Teodora inside JTG 333 as female discussed with male was unreliable hearsay.
- Petitioner's motion for reconsideration denied December 15, 2008.
- Secretary of Justice:
- On petition for review, Secretary of Justice affirmed dismissal on April 16, 2009, citing lack of eyewitness, lack of motive, insufficient circumstantial evidence, and doubtful identification of Philip by witnesses, resulting in lack of probable cause to charge Philip and Teodora with murder.
- Secretary emphasized doubts: windows of the car were tinted; Philip did not alight from the car; other circumstances were suspicions not indicating Philip’s presence at time of crime.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the Secretary was denied May 21, 2009.
- Court of Appeals:
- Petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 43 in the CA, assigning error to the Secretary’s denial and asserting that numerous circumstantial pieces warranted murder charges with aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery.
- On November 20, 2009, the CA promulgated a decision dismissing the petition for review; motion for reconsideration denied for lack of merit.
- Supreme Court:
- Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.
Legal Questions and Standards Applied
- Jurisdictional and procedural question:
- Whether filing a petition for review under Rule 43, Rules of Court, was a proper remedy to challenge the Secretary of Justice’s resolution on probable cause.
- Standard governing review of Secretary of Justice’s determination of probable cause:
- The determination of probable cause to file a criminal complaint or information is with