ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. Nos. 163960-65. August 2, 2004]

GUTOC vs. DOJ

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 2 2004 .

G.R. Nos. 163960-65 ( Amer M. Gutoc and Acmad Saplid v. Department of Justice and Manolo F. Tumada .)

For consideration is a Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition under Rule 65. It seeks the nullification of the Resolutions of respondent Department of Justice ("DOJ") dated 4 July 2003 and 16 April 2004.

A vehicular collision on the night of 21 March 2000 in Baloi, Lanao del Norte, left one person dead and three others injured. The vehicles involved were a Tamaraw FX Revo driven by respondent Manolo Tumada ("Tumada") and owned by his father, Manuel Tumada, and an Armak passenger jitney driven by petitioner Amer Gutoc ("Gutoc") and owned by his brother, Acmad Saplid ("Saplid"). Gutoc filed an Affidavit-Complaint against the Tumadas with the Lanao del Norte Provincial Prosecutor. In response to the complaint, Manolo Tumada likewise filed an Affidavit-Complaint against Saplid. Some of Tumada's passengers likewise filed their respective affidavit-complaints against Saplid. Eventually, all these cases were consolidated for the purpose of preliminary investigation.1

On 17 May 2000, the Lanao del Norte Provincial Prosecutor issued a Consolidated Resolution, finding that Tumada bore sole criminal liability for the accident, and recommended that he be . charged with "Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide, Multiple Physical Injuries and to Damage to Property."2 After his Motion for Reconsideration to the Consolidated Resolution was denied, Tumada appealed the same to the Office of the Regional State' Prosecutor, which in turn affirmed the Resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor.3 Tumada then appealed to the DOJ.

On 4 July 2003, the DOJ issued the assailed Resolution, reversing the earlier resolutions, and directing the Lanao del Norte Provincial Prosecutor to withdraw the information against Tumada. 4 The DOJ likewise found that the direct cause of the accident was the negligence of Saplid, and thus directed the filing of the appropriate information against Saplid. Saplid's Motion for Reconsideration to this DOJ Resolution was denied in a Resolution dated 16 April 2004; hence, the present petition.

In support of its ruling, the DOJ made the following findings:

1) Just before the accident, Saplid had sighted the Tamaraw Revo driven by Tumada running at a fast clip from the opposite direction and overtaking another vehicle on the descending and curved portion of the highway. Nonetheless, Saplid proceeded at 30 kph, failing to give way to the incoming vehicles and discarding the necessary precaution required of him under the circumstances. 5

2) Saplid had the last clear chance of avoiding the collision either by stopping at a reasonable distance or pulling further to the right where there was enough space for his vehicle to go. 6

3) The photographs depicting the damage sustained by the colliding vehicles give credence to Tumada's claim that immediately prior to the accident, the Armak jitney had no lights on, and that its headlights were turned on only when the vehicles were just four meters away from each other. 7

4) The relative positions of the colliding vehicles drawn in the traffic accident report is highly suspect, it having been made when the vehicles were already moved from their original positions, nor did they indicate the skid marks. 8

Petitioners allege before us that the DOJ acted with grave abuse of discretion when it made these particular findings. An examination though of the petition reveals that petitioners advert to nothing more than imputed errors in factual appreciation on the part of the DOJ. No attack is posed as to the manner of the DOJ's investigation. Neither is there any allegation that petitioners were deprived the opportunity to present their case before the DOJ.

The nature and the objective of a preliminary investigation is not for the public prosecutors to decide whether there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the person charged, but merely to determine "whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial." 9

On its face, the assailed Resolution of the DOJ is well-reasoned, and grounded on the evidence on record. Petitioners may dispute the DOJ's appreciation of the evidence, but such issues are better ventilated during trial. Precisely, the trial is for the reception of the prosecution's evidence in support of the charge. 10 The special civil action for certiorari cannot serve as an effective substitute for a trial on the merits.

The public prosecutor has broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those whom he or she believes to have committed the crime as defined by law. 11 Courts must respect the exercise of such discretion by the DOJ and its prosecutors, especially when their findings are valid on their face, and when no manifest error, grave abuse of discretion or prejudice can be imputed to the public prosecutors. 12

The Petition is DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

1 Rollo, p. 11.

2 lbid.

3 Id. at 12.

4 I d . at 41.

5 Id . at 43-44.

6 Id. at 44.

7 Ibid.

8 ld . at 44-45.

9 People of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 401, 415 (1999).

10 Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101978, 7 April 1993, 221 SCRA 349,360.

11 People of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, supra note 9 at 411.

12 Id. at 405.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011