Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > March 2009 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 172677 : March 18, 2009] ISAGANI YAMBOT AND LETTY JIMENEZ-MAGSANOC, PETITIONERS, VS. RAYMUNDO A. ARMOVIT AND HON. FRANCISCO R. RANCHES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 21 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF VIGAN, IIOCOS SUR, RESPONDENTS :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 18 March 2009:

G.R. No. 172677 (ISAGANI YAMBOT and LETTY JIMENEZ-MAGSANOC, Petitioners, versus RAYMUNDO A. ARMOVIT and HON. FRANCISCO R. RANCHES, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of Branch 21 of the Regional Trial Court of Vigan, IIocos Sur, respondents). - This resolves the October 21, 2008 Motion for Reconsideration^[1] filed by petitioners in the instant case.   The pertinent facts and proceedings as narrated in the assailed September 12, 2008 Decision^[2] read:

On account of the publication in the May 2 and 3. 1996 issues of the Philippine Daily Inquirer of news reports which allegedly imputed to private respondent Armovit the harboring or concealment of a convicted murderer (his client, Rolito Go), Armovit filed on May 15, 1996 with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) of IIocos Sur a complaint-affidavit for libel against petitioners Yambot, the publisher, and Jimenez-Magsanoc, the editor-in-chief, and two other correspondents, Teddy Molina and Juliet Pascual, of the said broadsheet. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Nonatus Rojas then issued, on October 31, 1996, a Resolution finding probable cause to indict the petitioners and the reporters for libel. Two criminal informations for libel were consequently filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of IIocos Sur, Branch 21.

In the meantime, petitioners sought the review of the OPP's resolution by the Regional State Prosecutor (RSP). Eventually, RSP Constante Caridad reversed the findings of the OPP, prompting the latter to file a motion for the withdrawal of the .aforesaid informations on February 12, 1997.

The trial court, however, on July 9, 1997 denied the said motion on the ground that it found probable cause for the filing of the charges. The trial court later denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

Frustrated with the trial court's dispositions, petitioners sought the issuance of a certiorari writ by the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 54397. But the CA, in the assailed decision and resolution, denied the reliefs prayed for.

Thus,.petitioners elevated the matter for review by this Court on the following grounds:

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO RULE THAT RESPONDENT TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE PROVINCIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW. THE TWO (2) INFORMATIONS FOR LIBEL AGAINST PETITIONERS, THUS EFFECTIVELY DEPRIVING THE PETITIONERS OF THEIR RIGHT TO PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO RULE THAT THE RESPONDENT TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN RULING THAT THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO CHARGE PETITIONERS WITH LIBEL.

Restating the doctrine in Crespo v. Mogul,^[3] a case on all fours with the one at bar, the Court, in the assailed decision, denied the petition for review on certiorari

As mentioned, above, petitioners moved for reconsideration. Respondents, for their part, filed their Comment^[4] on February 23, 2009.

The motion for reconsideration is denied.

A perusal of the motion reveals that it contains a mere rehash of the arguments already passed upon by the Court in the assailed decision. As the' Court has stated in its earlier decision, once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests in the sound discretion of that court. It may, therefore, grant or deny at its option a motion to dismiss or to withdraw the information^[5] based on its own assessment of the records of the preliminary investigation submitted to it, in the faithful exercise of judicial discretion and prerogative, and not out of subservience to the prosecutor.^[6] To reiterate, the court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it.^[7]

Only in clear cases of grave abuse of discretion will this Court interfere and reverse the trial court's findings and conclusions. Here, as stated in our decision, the trial court made its own assessment of the records submitted to it; thus, it complied with its bounden duty to determine by itself the merits of the motion. Its ruling, therefore, cannot be categorized as tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

The other arguments adduced by petitioners pertain to evidentiary matters which ought to be presented, heard, and resolved during the trial.^[8]

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING DISQUISITIONS, the Court DENIES WITH FINALITY the October 21, 2008 Motion for Reconsideration.

SO ORDERED.

WITNESS the Honorable Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson, Hon. Antonio T. Carpio (designated member per Raffle dated 25 February 2009), Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Dante O. Tinga (designated member per Special Order No. 590 dated 17 March 2009) and Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Members, Special Third Division, this 18^th day of March 2009.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 152-157.

^[2] Id. at 146-151.

^[3] No. L-53373, June 30, 1987, 151 SCRA 462.

^[4] Rollo, pp. 162-165.

^[5] Santos v. Orda, Jr., 481 Phil. 93, 105-106(2004).

^[6] Fuentes v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164664, July 20, 2006, 495 SCRA 784, 801; Pilapil v. Hon. Garchitorena, 359 Phil. 674, 687-688 (1998).

^[7] Crespo v. Mogul, supra note 3, at 471.

^[8] See People v. CA, 361 Phil. 401, 415 (1999).