Case Summary (G.R. No. 239521)
Facts
The sequence of events began with petitioners filing a criminal complaint for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) conducted a preliminary investigation but ultimately dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause. Following this dismissal, the petitioners appealed to the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP) in San Fernando City, La Union. The ORSP upheld the OPP’s findings. In response, the petitioners sought a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
CA Ruling
The Court of Appeals issued a resolution on May 22, 2017, dismissing the petition for certiorari on procedural grounds, asserting that the petitioners had chosen the wrong legal remedy. According to the CA, the petitioners should have appealed the ORSP's decision to the Secretary of Justice (SOJ) before proceeding to court. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in another CA resolution dated March 12, 2018.
The Issue
The primary legal issue presented to the Court was whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the basis of the supposed wrong remedy selected by the petitioners.
The Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court found in favor of the petitioners, stating that the CA’s dismissal constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The Court noted that the DOJ Department Circular No. 70-A outlined the appeals process, which allowed determinations by the ORSP to be final in certain cases. Specifically, per DOJ Circular No. 70-A, if the complaint was filed outside the National Capital Region (NCR) and was cognizable by the first-level courts, the ORSP's decision would be final. Given that the perjury accusation was filed outside the NCR and the penalty was within the jurisdiction of the first-level courts, the ORSP's ruling was indeed final.
Legal Framework and Implications
The Court emphasized that the amendments to the DOJ circulars did not preclude the petitioners from appealing to the CA via certiorari since they had exhausted their administrative remedies. The ORSP ruling was final, and th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 239521)
Case Background
- The petition for certiorari is directed against the Resolutions dated May 22, 2017, and March 12, 2018, issued by the Court of Appeals (CA).
- The petitioners are Primo A. Mina, Felix De Vera, Pompeyo Magali, Bernadette Amor, and Purificacion Dela Cruz, while the respondents are the Court of Appeals and Rodolfo C. Tandoc.
Initial Complaint
- Petitioners filed an Affidavit-Complaint for Perjury against respondent Rodolfo C. Tandoc before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pangasinan (OPP).
- The OPP conducted a preliminary investigation and subsequently dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause.
Administrative Appeal
- Following the dismissal by the OPP, the petitioners appealed to the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP) located in San Fernando City, La Union.
- The ORSP upheld the OPP's dismissal, affirming that no probable cause existed to indict Tandoc for Perjury.
Petition for Certiorari
- Undeterred by the ORSP's decision, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, challenging the dismissal of their complaint.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- The CA dismissed the petition in a Resolution dated May 22, 2017, arguing that petitioners had pursued the wrong remedy.
- It asserted that under DOJ Department Circular No. 70-A, petitioners should have appealed the adverse ORSP ruling to the