Summary: A
petition for certiorari questioning the validity of the preliminary
investigation in any other venue is rendered moot by the issuance of a warrant
of arrest and the conduct of arraignment.
FACTS: A
complaint for murder was filed by the Philippine National Police- Olongapo City
Police Office and private respondent Marilou Laude y Serdoncillo (Laude)
against petitioner Joseph Scott Pemberton (Pemberton). Pemberton received a
Subpoena issued by the City Prosecutor of Olongapo City giving him 10 days from
receipt within which to file a counter-affidavit. Laude filed an Omnibus
Motion, which Pemberton opposed. During the preliminary investigation on
October 27, 2014, the City Prosecutor of Olongapo City stated that Pemberton‘s
right to file a counter- affidavit was deemed waived. The City Prosecutor of
Olongapo City continued to evaluate the evidence and conducted ocular
inspections in connection with the preliminary investigation. It found probable
cause against [Pemberton] for the crime of murder.‖ An Information for
murder was filed against Pemberton before the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo
City. The trial court issued a warrant of arrest.
On December 18, 2014, Pemberton filed his Petition for
Review before the Department of Justice. On the same day, he filed a Motion to
Defer the Proceedings before the Regional Trial Court. Secretary De Lima denied
Pemberton‘s Petition for Review and stated that based on the evidence on
record, there was ―no reason to alter, modify, or reverse the resolution of the
City Prosecutor of Olongapo City. Aggrieved, Pemberton filed this
Petition for Certiorari with application for the ex-parte
issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
injunction. Pemberton argues that: (a) Secretary De Lima took into account
additional evidence which the City Prosecutor allegedly had no authority to
receive and which Pemberton had no opportunity to address and rebut, thereby
denying him due process of law; (b) Secretary De Lima found probable cause to
charge Pemberton with the crime of murder when ― the evidence on record does
not support the existence of probable cause to indict [him] with either
homicide or murder[;] and (c) Secretary De Lima found that ― the killing was attended
with the qualifying circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength[,]
and cruelty despite prevailing jurisprudence dictating that the elements of
these qualifying circumstances be established by direct evidence.
Secretary De Lima, through the Office of the Solicitor
General, points out that this Petition is procedurally infirm. The Petition
assails the appreciation of evidence and law by Secretary De Lima, which are ―
errors of judgment [that] cannot be remedied by a writ of certiorari. Further,
by filing this Petition before this court and not the Court of Appeals,
Pemberton violated the principle of hierarchy of courts. Moreover, the case is
moot and academic, considering that the Regional Trial Court has convicted
Pemberton for the crime charged.
ISSUES: 1.
Whether respondent Secretary Leila M. De Lima committed grave abuse of discretion
in sustaining the finding of probable cause against petitioner Joseph Scott
Pemberton, thereby denying petitioner due process of law.
2. Whether
petitioner violated the principle of hierarchy of courts by filing his Petition
before this Court instead of the Court of Appeals.
3. Whether
this case has been rendered moot and academic.
HELD: 1. No.
Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, as
the investigating officer acts upon probable cause of reasonable belief.
Probable cause implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare
suspicion but less than evidence which would justify a conviction. A finding of
probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than
not, a crime has been committed by the suspect. There is no basis to doubt that
respondent De Lima judiciously scrutinized the evidence on record. Based on
respondent De Lima‘s assessment, there was ample evidence submitted to
establish probable cause that petitioner murdered the victim. Foregoing
circumstances all taken together leads to the fair and reasonable inference
that respondent is probably guilty of killing Laude through treachery, abuse of
superior strength, and cruelty. Absence of direct evidence does not preclude a
finding of probable cause. It has been the consistent pronouncement of the
Supreme Court that, in such cases, the prosecution may resort to circumstantial
evidence. Crimes are usually committed in secret and under conditions where
concealment is highly probable. De Lima‘s determination was based on a careful
evaluation of evidence presented.
2.
Yes. It is not clear why any action by the Court of
Appeals, which has concurrent original jurisdiction in petitions for certiorari
under Rule 65, cannot be considered as sufficient for review of petitioner‘s
case. Furthermore, the possibility of the conclusion of the trial of the case
against petitioner is not a reason that is special and important enough to successfully
invoke this Court‘s original jurisdiction. Once there has been a judicial
finding of probable cause, an executive determination of probable cause is
irrelevant.
3.
Yes. A petition for certiorari questioning the validity
of the preliminary investigation in any other venue is rendered moot by the
issuance of a warrant of arrest and the conduct of arraignment. Once the
information is filed in court, the court acquires jurisdiction of the case and
any motion to dismiss the case or to determine the accused‘s guilt or innocence
rests within the sound discretion of the court. Should the fiscal find it
proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the case, at such stage, the permission
of the Court must be secured. After such reinvestigation the finding and recommendations
of the fiscal should be submitted to the Court for appropriate action. Whether
the accused had been arraigned or not and whether it was due to a
reinvestigation by the fiscal or a review by the Secretary of Justice whereby a
motion to dismiss was submitted to the Court, the Court in the exercise of its
discretion may grant the motion or deny it and require that the trial on the
merits proceed for the proper determination of the case.
Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of
the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he
[or she] cannot impose his [or her] opinion on the trial court. The Court is
the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The
determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence.
A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the
Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this
is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was
filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice
who reviewed the records of the investigation.
Even without the conviction, this Petition has already been
rendered moot and academic by virtue of the judicial finding of probable cause
in the form of the Regional Trial Court's issuance of an arrest warrant against
petitioner.
Comments
Post a Comment