Yap v. Ibay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Jerry Sia Yap, Gloria M. Galuno, Edwin R. Alcala, and Becky Rodriguez were indicted for libel. The charges stemmed from two separate newspaper articles published in Hataw Newspaper and X-Files Newspaper, respectively, on October 3 and 4, 2014. These articles, titled "Salot na Tulak sa Distrito Uno ng Maynila (Attention: PDEA)", allegedly imputed libelous statements concerning drug pushing activities and the alleged involvement of a barangay official's relative, and questioned the swift release of a drug pusher from police custody, referencing Police Senior Inspector Rosalino P. Ibay, Jr. as having been in office during a prior apprehension. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash the Informations, arguing that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) lacked jurisdiction because the Informations failed to specify that the offended party, PSI Ibay, held office in Manila at the time of publication, and did not clearly state where the articles were printed and first published. The RTC denied this motion, finding that the allegation of PSI Ibay being stationed at the Manila Police District, Tondo, Manila, sufficiently conferred jurisdiction. The RTC subsequently denied their Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC's denial of their motion to quash. The CA dismissed the petition, citing procedural defects and the availability of other remedies. Petitioners' subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was also denied by the CA. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in dismissing their petition and that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying their motion to quash. They contend that the Informations did not establish the RTC's jurisdiction because they failed to definitively state that the libelous articles were printed and first published in Manila, and that the article itself indicated PSI Ibay was no longer assigned in Manila. They also argue that the RTC erroneously inferred jurisdictional facts. The Supreme Court, however, denied the petition, affirming the CA's dismissal and the RTC's denial of the motion to quash, primarily on the grounds that the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order generally not appealable, and that the CA correctly found procedural infirmities in the petition before it, including the improper use of certiorari and failure to comply with procedural rules.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order. Whether the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion to quash the Informations for libel. Whether the Informations sufficiently alleged the venue for the libel cases involving a public officer.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' Resolutions dated May 6, 2016 and October 12, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 145150 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the Petition for Certiorari: The Court reiterated that the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order, which is generally not appealable. The aggrieved party's remedy is to proceed to trial and raise the denial as an error on appeal if a judgment of conviction is rendered. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy available only in the absence of an appeal or any other adequate, plain, and speedy remedy. The Court found that petitioners had a plain and speedy remedy by proceeding to trial, thus, certiorari was not the proper recourse. The Court also noted several procedural defects in the petitioners' petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, including the availment of the wrong remedy, failure to implead the People of the Philippines as respondent, lack of proper verification, and failure to submit required documents. These infirmities further justified the CA's dismissal of the petition. On Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Court clarified that not every erroneous conclusion of law or fact constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. The Court found that the RTC's denial of the motion to quash, even if potentially erroneous in its inference, did not rise to the level of grave abuse of discretion that would warrant the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. On the Sufficiency of Allegations for Venue: The Court held that Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the venue in libel cases. For a public officer, the action may be filed in the court of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published, or where the public officer held office at the time of the commission of the offense. The Informations in this case categorically stated that the newspapers were "printed and first published in the City of Manila." This allegation was sufficient to vest jurisdiction upon the RTC of Manila, irrespective of whether PSI Ibay still held office in Manila at the time of publication, as the venue was properly laid based on the place of publication.
Main Doctrine
The denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is generally not appealable; the proper remedy is to proceed to trial and raise the issue on appeal if a judgment of conviction is rendered. A petition for certiorari may only be availed of in the absence of an appeal or any other adequate, plain, and speedy remedy. Furthermore, for libel cases involving public officers, the venue is properly laid in the court of the province or city where the libelous article was printed and first published, even if the public officer no longer holds office in that location at the time of publication.