September 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > September 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 189867 : September 08, 2010] VIRGINIA D. BALAGTAS V. COURT OF APPEALS, SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, MOLINA A. CABA AND LEONILA GUEVARRA:
[G.R. No. 189867 : September 08, 2010]
VIRGINIA D. BALAGTAS V. COURT OF APPEALS, SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, MOLINA A. CABA AND LEONILA GUEVARRA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 08 September 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 189867 (Virginia D. Balagtas v. Court of Appeals, Secretary of Justice, Molina A. Caba and Leonila Guevarra). - The instant petition stemmed from a perjury case filed by petitioner Virginia Halagtas against private respondents Leonila Guevarra and Molina A. Caba, as a consequence of which a warrant of arrest was issued against respondents. During a confrontation at the Warrant and Subpoena Unit of the Makati Police Station, private respondents allegedly uttered the words at petitioner: "Humanda ka, may araw ka rin x x x ipapatay kita x x x. May masamang mangyayari sa 'yo, x x x. Kapal ng mukha mo! Sinungaling ka! Ang Pangit mo![1]
These utterances prompted petitioner to file a complaint for Grave Threats and Grave Slander against respondents.
In a resolution dated April 8, 2008, the City Prosecutor found no probable cause and recommended the dismissal of the complaint. Upon review by the Secretary of Justice, the finding was affirmed in tow. Petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration of the denial of her petition for review was likewise denied.
Undaunted, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA).
On July 30, 2009, the CA rendered the assailed Decision affirming the decision of the Secretary of Justice.
Hence, the instant petition alleging that the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari.
The petition is devoid of merit.
The Court finds no reversible error, much less grave abuse of discretion, on the part of respondent court in dismissing the petition for certiorari before it. The CA agreed with the findings of the Secretary of Justice, affirming the City Prosecutor, that there was no sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that respondents were guilty of the crime and should be held for trial thereof. "If indeed respondents uttered threatening and slanderous remarks, the police officers in whose presence this was committed, or even complainant herself, would have immediately-caused the arrest of respondents for these additional charges. This they did not do, giving credence to respondents' contention that while a confrontation did happen, the words uttered therein were not criminal."[2]
The determination of probable cause falls within the jurisdiction of the prosecutor or fiscal in the exercise of executive power, which the courts do not ordinarily interfere with unless there is grave abuse of discretion.[3] We agree with the respondent court when it stated that the corrective hand of certiorari cannot be availed of to inquire into the correctness of the findings of the City Prosecutor of Makati City or the Secretary of Justice simply because petitioner disagrees with their findings.[4]
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Mendoza, J., no part; Bersamin, J., designated additional member per raffle dated September 6, 2010.
G.R. No. 189867 (Virginia D. Balagtas v. Court of Appeals, Secretary of Justice, Molina A. Caba and Leonila Guevarra). - The instant petition stemmed from a perjury case filed by petitioner Virginia Halagtas against private respondents Leonila Guevarra and Molina A. Caba, as a consequence of which a warrant of arrest was issued against respondents. During a confrontation at the Warrant and Subpoena Unit of the Makati Police Station, private respondents allegedly uttered the words at petitioner: "Humanda ka, may araw ka rin x x x ipapatay kita x x x. May masamang mangyayari sa 'yo, x x x. Kapal ng mukha mo! Sinungaling ka! Ang Pangit mo![1]
These utterances prompted petitioner to file a complaint for Grave Threats and Grave Slander against respondents.
In a resolution dated April 8, 2008, the City Prosecutor found no probable cause and recommended the dismissal of the complaint. Upon review by the Secretary of Justice, the finding was affirmed in tow. Petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration of the denial of her petition for review was likewise denied.
Undaunted, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA).
On July 30, 2009, the CA rendered the assailed Decision affirming the decision of the Secretary of Justice.
Hence, the instant petition alleging that the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari.
The petition is devoid of merit.
The Court finds no reversible error, much less grave abuse of discretion, on the part of respondent court in dismissing the petition for certiorari before it. The CA agreed with the findings of the Secretary of Justice, affirming the City Prosecutor, that there was no sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that respondents were guilty of the crime and should be held for trial thereof. "If indeed respondents uttered threatening and slanderous remarks, the police officers in whose presence this was committed, or even complainant herself, would have immediately-caused the arrest of respondents for these additional charges. This they did not do, giving credence to respondents' contention that while a confrontation did happen, the words uttered therein were not criminal."[2]
The determination of probable cause falls within the jurisdiction of the prosecutor or fiscal in the exercise of executive power, which the courts do not ordinarily interfere with unless there is grave abuse of discretion.[3] We agree with the respondent court when it stated that the corrective hand of certiorari cannot be availed of to inquire into the correctness of the findings of the City Prosecutor of Makati City or the Secretary of Justice simply because petitioner disagrees with their findings.[4]
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Mendoza, J., no part; Bersamin, J., designated additional member per raffle dated September 6, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p- 24.
[2] Id. at 33.
[3] Id. at 31.
[4] Id. at 34.
