Urmaza v. Domingo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Meriam M. Urmaza filed a criminal complaint for Intriguing Against Honor and/or Oral Defamation against Ramon Torres Domingo. Urmaza alleged that Domingo spread rumors that she was a thief and publicly shouted accusations of her stealing a handgun. Domingo, in defense, stated he only voiced his suspicion during a confrontation before the barangay chairman and subsequently reported the incident to the police after Urmaza denied taking the gun. Procedural History: The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) initially dismissed Urmaza's complaint for insufficiency of evidence. Urmaza's motion for reconsideration was denied. She then appealed to the Office of the Regional Prosecution (ORP). The ORP initially dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds but later gave it due course and affirmed the OPP's dismissal, citing a lack of credible corroboration. Urmaza's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. She then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed Urmaza's petition for certiorari, ruling that it was the incorrect remedy to assail the ORP's resolution, as a petition for review with the Department of Justice was the proper recourse under DOJ Department Circular No. 70. The CA also noted the petition's failure to state material dates, a violation of the Rules of Court. Urmaza's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in dismissing her petition outright.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground of improper remedy and failure to state material dates. Whether the dismissal of the criminal complaint for Intriguing Against Honor and/or Oral Defamation by the prosecution agencies was tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground of improper remedy and failure to state material dates.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy and failure to state material dates: The appeals process in the National Prosecution Service (NPS) is governed by the DOJ's Department Circular No. 70, as amended by Department Circular No. 70-A and Department Circular No. 018-14. These circulars establish that resolutions of the Regional State Prosecutor (RSP) in cases cognizable by Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MCTCs), and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs), filed outside the National Capital Region (NCR), are generally final. In this case, the complaint was filed outside the NCR and the offenses charged are cognizable by the MTCs/MCTCs. Therefore, the ORP's ruling was considered final, and a petition for certiorari before the CA was indeed the wrong remedy. The proper remedy would have been to elevate the matter to the Secretary of Justice, if the SOJ chose to exercise his power of review, or directly to the courts if the ORP's ruling was considered final and executory. Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court explicitly requires petitions for certiorari to state the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received, when a motion for reconsideration was filed, and when notice of the denial thereof was received. The failure to comply with this requirement is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. In this case, Urmaza failed to provide these material dates, preventing the CA from determining if the petition was filed within the 60-day reglementary period. On the merits of the complaint: Even if the petition were to be resolved on the merits, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecution agencies. The elements of oral defamation require that the imputation be made publicly and maliciously. The ORP correctly pointed out the lack of corroborative witnesses to Urmaza's allegations of public shouting. The statement attributed to Domingo's son was considered hearsay. The accusation was made only during a confrontation before the barangay chairman, which, under the circumstances, could not be considered made maliciously to constitute oral defamation or intriguing against honor. The evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the wrong remedy to assail a resolution of the Regional Prosecutor if the same is considered final and executory under the NPS Rule on Appeal, and failure to state material dates in the petition is a ground for dismissal.