Provincial Prosecutor v. Lobiano
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Jelyn Galino, a minor, filed a criminal complaint against Angeline Morota and Marivic Lobiano for violation of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act. Jelyn alleged that she was recruited by Angeline to work in a restaurant but was instead brought to Sampaguita Bar in Sorsogon, owned by Marivic, where she was forced to work as a guest relations officer. Her duties included drinking alcohol and engaging in lascivious conduct with customers for pay, and she did not receive any salary for over a month due to fabricated debts. Jelyn was eventually rescued by her mother and the police. Affidavits from the rescuing officers corroborated that Jelyn and another minor, Danny Armario, were brought to the bar by Angeline. Angeline, in her counter-affidavit, claimed she was also recruited by Jelyn and Danny and was exploited by Marivic. 2. Procedural History: The Provincial Prosecutor of Albay found probable cause to indict Marivic Lobiano for Qualified Trafficking. An Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which, however, dismissed the case for lack of evidence to establish probable cause. The RTC found no proof of conspiracy between Marivic and the recruiters. The Provincial Prosecutor's motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, a Petition for Certiorari was filed before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed the petition, citing procedural defects: it was filed out of time and Certiorari was an improper remedy, as an appeal should have been filed. 3. The Petition: The Provincial Prosecutor filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's dismissal of their Certiorari petition. The petitioner argued that the CA erred in dismissing the petition for being filed out of time, presenting evidence that the petition was mailed on February 16, 2015, within the extended deadline. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that Certiorari was the proper remedy because the RTC's dismissal of the case for lack of probable cause was a patent nullity and an oppressive exercise of judicial authority, given the evidence establishing a prima facie case for qualified trafficking under Republic Act No. 9208, as amended. The petition argued that the CA should have resolved the merits of the case instead of dismissing it on procedural grounds.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari for being filed out of time. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari for being an improper remedy. Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal case for Qualified Trafficking for lack of probable cause.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated July 10, 2015, and April 15, 2016, as well as the Order dated November 13, 2014, issued by the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 9, dismissing the criminal case against Marivic Lobiano are SET ASIDE. The Criminal Information for Qualified Trafficking filed against Marivic Lobiano is REINSTATED, and the trial court is directed to proceed with the arraignment and trial of the case with dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the Petition for Certiorari: The Court held that the Petition for Certiorari was timely filed. The CA dismissed the petition, stating it was filed beyond the 60-day period from notice of the RTC's Order on December 16, 2014. However, February 14, 2015, the deadline, fell on a Saturday. The Provincial Prosecutor filed the petition via registered mail on February 16, 2015, the next working day. Under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, the date of mailing by registered mail is considered the date of filing. This is supported by the Certification from the Postmaster. Therefore, the petition was filed within the reglementary period, notwithstanding the CA's receipt date of February 23, 2015. On the propriety of the Petition for Certiorari: While generally an appeal is the proper remedy to question a final order like the dismissal of a case for lack of probable cause, the Court reiterated exceptions where a Petition for Certiorari may be entertained. These include instances where public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate, the broader interest of justice requires, or the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. The Court found that the case involves human trafficking, a crime of public interest, thus justifying the resort to certiorari. Furthermore, the RTC's dismissal was found to be a patent nullity due to grave abuse of discretion, making certiorari the appropriate remedy to correct such an error. On the RTC's grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case for lack of probable cause. Section 6(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure allows immediate dismissal only in clear-cut cases where the evidence plainly fails to establish probable cause. In this case, it was uncontroverted that Jelyn was a minor when Marivic hired her, Marivic did not verify her age, and Jelyn's work involved prostitution or sexual exploitation. These facts, as established by the OCP's resolution and the evidence presented, sufficiently established a prima facie case for Qualified Trafficking under Sections 4(a) and 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208, as amended. The RTC's finding of a total absence of proof of conspiracy was irrelevant to the charge of hiring and receiving a trafficked person, as the law does not require the receiver and recruiter to act in concert. Therefore, the RTC's dismissal was not based on a clear lack of probable cause and constituted an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
Main Doctrine
A Petition for Certiorari may be entertained to question the dismissal of a criminal case for lack of probable cause when the dismissal constitutes a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, especially in cases involving public interest such as human trafficking. The timely filing of a petition by registered mail is determined by the date of mailing, not the date of receipt by the court.