Cajipe v. People
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 5, 2008, Alfonso "Jun" S. De Vera and his seven-year-old daughter, Lia Allana, were killed in what was alleged to be a shootout involving elements of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Highway Patrol Group (HPG) and Special Action Force (SAF). Lilian I. De Vera, Jun's wife, filed a complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) charging several PNP officers, including the petitioners, with multiple murder. She alleged that her husband and daughter were targeted in a planned killing, and that despite being wounded, Jun was shot again by police officers while attempting to rescue their daughter. Procedural History: Following a preliminary investigation, the DOJ found probable cause to indict the involved police officers for two counts of murder and filed the corresponding informations before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City. The petitioner HPG officers moved to dismiss the charges, arguing a lack of probable cause and violations of their constitutional rights. The RTC dismissed the case against the petitioner HPG officers, finding no evidence directly linking them to the shooting and concluding they acted merely as a blocking force. However, the RTC issued arrest warrants for the SAF officers. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on behalf of the People, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA granted the petition, ruling that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in failing to evaluate witness affidavits that implicated the HPG officers, and ordered the issuance of arrest warrants against them. The CA denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration, leading to the present petition. The Petition: The petitioners, HPG officers, seek review of the CA's decision and resolution, arguing that the CA erred in granting the OSG's petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as the RTC's dismissal order was a final and appealable order, not subject to certiorari. They also contend that the CA erred in counting the prescriptive period for filing the Rule 65 petition, asserting it was filed out of time. Furthermore, they argue that the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion by the RTC, as the evidence presented did not establish probable cause against them, particularly noting that witness testimonies identified SAF officers as the shooters and that crime laboratory reports indicated none of the HPG officers discharged their firearms during the incident.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the CA erred in granting the OSG's petition for certiorari under Rule 65, given that the RTC's order of dismissal is a final and appealable order. Whether or not the CA erred in counting the prescriptive period for filing a Rule 65 petition from the time of receipt of the court order by the OSG rather than by the city prosecutor's office. Whether or not the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC judge in holding that no probable cause exists against petitioner HPG officers and in dismissing the criminal charge against them.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, and affirmed the Order of the Regional Trial Court dismissing the case against the petitioner HPG officers. The Court ordered the dismissal of the charge against the petitioners and the withdrawal of the warrants for their arrest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The RTC judge acted within his powers when he dismissed the case against the petitioner HPG officers for lack of probable cause, as provided under Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court of Appeals should have denied the People's petition for certiorari because Section 1 of Rule 65 clearly states that such an action is available only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, Section 1, Rule 122 of the same rules provides that an appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order like the RTC's order of dismissal. The RTC's order is considered final and appealable as it disposes of the case and terminates the proceedings with respect to the petitioner HPG officers. Therefore, the CA clearly erred in not denying the petition for being the wrong remedy. On the timeliness of the petition: Assuming, for the sake of argument, that a special civil action for certiorari was the proper remedy, the People, through the OSG, filed its petition 112 days from the receipt of the dismissal order by the city prosecutor of Parañaque. This is beyond the 60-day period allowed for such an action under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The OSG's contention that the reckoning point should be from the date the Department of Justice or the court gave it notice is untenable, as there is no reason for the RTC to serve copy of its judgments or final orders upon the OSG when it does not enter its appearance in criminal cases before it. In such instances, the public prosecutor's duty is to communicate the facts and recommendation to the OSG, advising it of the last day for filing such an action, and the OSG has sixty days from notice to the public prosecutor within which to file the petition. Thus, the petition was filed out of time, rendering the order of dismissal beyond appellate review. On the existence of probable cause: Even if the petition were properly filed and timely, the prosecution's evidence fails to establish probable cause against the petitioner HPG officers. The affidavits of witnesses Indiana and Ronald Castillo, relied upon by the OSG, did not directly implicate the HPG officers in the shooting. Indiana's testimony identified the shooter as an RSAF officer, and Castillo did not witness the shooting itself but confirmed two police officers gave chase. The HPG men belonged to a different unit and there was no claim they wore another unit's vest. Furthermore, the crime laboratory report revealed that none of the HPG operatives discharged their firearms. The prosecution also failed to show that the HPG officers were issued long firearms, which were reportedly used by the SAF officers involved, as certifications indicated they had not been issued such firearms. Probable cause requires facts sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, which was not met in this case.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is not the proper remedy to assail an order of dismissal for lack of probable cause in a criminal case, as such an order is a final and appealable order. The proper remedy is an appeal under Section 1, Rule 122 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, a petition for certiorari must be filed within the reglementary period of sixty (60) days from notice of the order.