2)court of appeals 133680

7/21/2019 2)Court of Appeals 133680

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2court-of-appeals-133680 1/13

Republic of the FtsriliPPlnesCOURT OF APPEALS

h/anila

THIRTEENTI.I DIVISION

MEHGARETT VERONICA DE

LOS SANTOS,Petitioner'

VETSUS

CA-G"ffi. SF No. 133660

Members.

LIEREA-LEAGOGO'ChairPersonDIAMANTE, andSADANG, JJ.

Promulgated: AUG I 3HON. LEILA M. DE I.IMA,SECRETABY OF JUSTICE,IruTT ERNESTO DE LOS

SANTOS,ResPondents.

20t41 inflZ

ll,tgor*

DEGIs-l@N

Before this Court is a Petition lor Certiorarl datedllT Januarv

zal4under Rure 6s of the Rures of court, assai,ng the' Resolutions

dated 27 rr,tay io1s, and os nucumber 20133-issued by pub'lic

respondent serrltary of .the

-bepartment of Jutstice, in Lhe cilse

entitted "Mergatrett veronica Detos santos v' Atty' Ernesto Delos

Santos,,, OocLeieJ as A/PS Oiiint /Vo' 11-101Siqt ' The assailed

Resorutions oismiiruo tne pet[ilii*i r petition for Revieur anci der':ied

ih;M;ii;n for Reconsideration with finalitv'

Private respondent fited his Commenta dated 31 March 7-|J,t4.

Per JRD verification,s no reply was fileci as per CMIS entry' Thlts' tlte

third paragrapfi- ot' y,* Resoirlionu dated 27 Februarv 201/:;- is

reiterated ano lne petition is submitted for decision.



CA-G.R. SP No' 133660Decision

AComplainVAffidavit?dated2sAugust,la:Jforactsoflasciviousness was filed ov comprainant Mergarett .vgrolica Delos

Santos (,,Nf"rgaieii,,, for bievity) against, resp6ndent Ernesto Delos

Santos l,,f rnesiii'toi-Uruvity)'at t6e Oftice of the City Pro-segutor'

Baguio CitY.

Complainantalleged,in-teralia,|hal:onorabout0sDecember2AA2, when sh; ;;;-;gni (ai yeari old and a Grade 2 elementary

student, rrnesio i"qr"lt*,ir'''Li mother, ,Juliewhyn R' Quindoza("Juliewhyn," f;; nie'ity;, if he could sleep beside her' in bed;

Juliewhyn ,onr"nted upO st*pi-in u separate room since the latter

thought that E;;esto wanted io ,penO iime.with her alone; in bed'

while she was facing the wall, ihu'felt sornething rubbing against her

buttocks; she rooiei behind hei and saw that her father is rubbing his

penis on her ourttocrs; Ernesto also began touching her breast; she

was very trignteneJ and could not scream or move Jo she just closed

her eyes and pretended to be it*eping;-th.e following morning' she

told her mother to leaveimmeoiatlrv toi Bulacan but failed to tell her

of the incident; she and Juliewhyn went to Bulacan and spent

christnras and New Year there; on January 2003' she disclosed to

her mother the incident involving her father; Juliewhyn called Ernesto

ancl confronted him about the iricident; ancj to date' she is still afraid

tobealoneintheSameroomwithherfatherErnesto.

lnhisCounter-Affidavit8dated2sseptembgrzo]-|,Ernestoalleged, inter alia, lhat'. he did-not commit the crime charged; the

complaint is OevoiO of merit and is just another case in a string of

harassmunt casei Jit"O ny lufewhyn'and Emily de Leon("Emily"' lar

brevity); the allegations ot rvr*igurltt ano,Juliewhyn in their affidavit

are patentry tiii6 ino taoricaiei; it was stated by Mergarett that the

alleged act complained of trilpired on 0B De-cember"2gg2 while

Jutiewhyn utrluJinit r," in"iolni"r'*ppu:,11on 07 December Zoa? or

thedayofMergarett,sfirstHolyCommunlonwhereasthefirstHolyCommunion of Mergarett *ut r'Lld on 08 December 2001; he did not

receive any phone call from-.luJiu*nyn in January 2OA3 confronting

him about the incident; .ruliewrrvn n*'*t ,lodqeda complaint against

him for the aregedmorestation 1n the pubricittorney's office (PAo)

inBaguioCity;thegnl{instancewhenJuliewhynsoughttheassistance of PAo against r,in, *as in January 2AA2-regarding her

claim for support of Mergarett; PAo lawyer Atty' Merly Espinosa

(,,Atty. Espin|5a,'i fo,, Ur"uity)"piepareO a,triotice of Pre-litigation; the

allegation ot-Jriiu*nyn that she'consenteO tg rr,i1 t: ::':t to sleep

alone with Mergarett in a rooir is highly irnprobable considering that



CA-G.R. SP No' 133660 3

Mergarett was of tenderage and could not be separated from her

mother; the allegations of Mergarett in .h?r,"oTplaint is only a product

of Jutiewhyn's imagination; suih complaint was initiated by Juliewhyn

and not bv Mergarett as t r9e (3) month,s prior to the filing of the

complaint, Mergirett never failld'to show her love, care and concern

for him, through text mesrrg"r; ihu ronutant.communication between

Frinr and Mergarett belies rre' accusation that he molestecj her; if

indeed he committed thb atreg; ugtu, th"l Juliewhyn should have

shietded Mergarett away trim him; instead' Jutiewhyn utilized

Ivlergarett to Jolicit money tto, him'and for him to be subject to

Juliewhyn,, *r,i*, and capricls; Mergarett. spent timew1h him and

his other children from ZOO+ 'to Z[OA; it is surprising that the

complaint was fited after the lapse of more than nine (9) years ancl

eighr (a) monil-rs and barely i"ui t+l months before the'prescriptive

period for filing a case; giu;n 'tl9'.ong

history of Emily and

Ju,ewhyn,s eniliusiasm to pressure him to withdraw his opposition to

the probate oi ni, father's uffug*O holographic will' th-e inevitable

conclusion follows that tft* tifind of the iistant case' after nine (9)

years and eight (8) months trori the time of the atleged incident' is

similartymoiiuaieo; the elements of the crime of acts of

lasciviousness are wanting in the case at bar; and the closenessbetween him and Mergarett is that of a father and daughter

relationsrrip which could not n" inierpreted to be lewd or malicious'

tntheReplyJoint(.)Affidavitgdated0Toctober20llofJuliewhyn and'Vi*igur*tt, inef Jleged, inter al6, that: the case of

acts of lasciviousn*L tifed agiinst Ernesto is not a harassment case

but a genuine case that actuiiy toot< ptacq on the day of the first Holy

communion of Mergarett; tne iacts siated in the complaint(-)affidavit

are all true and correct and not fabricated;they may have had a

memory lapse regarding th; date and Ylar .of , th? first Holy

communion when the lewd acts comptained of took place' taking into

consideration the length of time that elapsed but tlre timemark (first

Holy communion) would indicate the actual date when the said'acts

of lasciviousness were commiited by Ernesto; the incident when she

went to PAO and was urrist"J-L, ntt, Espinosa is different from the

occasion when she went il;;' to tomptain about the lewd acts

committedbyErnestoagainstMergarett,wherenoPAolawyer

attendedto''ner so notfring Lame 6,t oi her complaint; the text

messageu *"ru not sent O,"rvr*igiiett and were merely fabricated byErnesto; the lapse of nine (giy;;* and-eight (B) months from the

commission of the lascivious'acts does not"negate its ,commission;

the faiture to file the case was oue to financial constraints' and the

threats and intimidation of Ernesto',




4

AResolutionlodated06october20llinNPSDocketNo,ll.101g47 (for utti of tasciviousness) was issued by Associate

prosecutor Attorney Arlen" Vi*riu G. Cacho ("Associate-Prosecutor

Cacho,,, for brevity), and upp,ouuo by office'-in.Chu,ge/Deputy City

prosecutor Gloria C. Agunor oi tit'ciiv of Baguio' iecommending

rhe dismissal of the Case toi' rutx. of prob*6te cause' pertinent

portions of which read:

"xxxx

lf comptainant was truly aggriev,ed' 1ndif her mother truly

wantediusticeforher'neimoii*''being'ofage'wouldhaveimmediatety filed a compla,iri itti, the iicident

-in question and

wottld not have waited for many years ol m.ore than nine (9) years

b assert their rights. while it'ii true that delay in the filing of

criminal complaints does- io{ itturt the veracity of the

complaint, when the dehf is'iirruuorabte and unexplained, it

becames'an indication of tiriri,tiityof the charge being filed'

WHEREFORE'premisesconsidered'itis"'re'sO72tlullVrecommendecl that tne

"'i-Ooue-entitleri case fited against

aespondeil-Erntesto Detos-Iiiioi i" DtsMtssED forlack of

Mergarett,assistedbyhermother.,Iuliewhyn,filed.aMotionforReconsideration,l2 to which Einesto fired u c,i*r"envopposition'13

Provincial Prosecutor of La Union Danilo -C'Bumacod ("Provincial

Prosecutor Bumacod," tor urJiig' n9t110.91" Prosecutor of Baguio

City, issued u ,r"i^1 nesolutioiii-&utuO t O:H'tarin 2012 in NPS Docket

No. t-tNv-l1-02164 (tor vioLaiion oi n.n. r'ro. gzoz) and NPs No' l-

tNV-11-1A1g41 (for acts of luscirorrn.rrl denyingthe Motion for

Beconsideration and sustailig tlq^Paguio' CIty Prosecutor's

Resotution dated 06 Octob uiiOni in NPS ftfo' flttV-it-tOt?il' and

the Resotution dated aO Sepfmber 201 1 in NPS Docket No' l-lNV-

11-02164, puitin"nt portions of which retx)' vir'

"xxxx

CANIPLAINANT'S ARGUMENTS ARE SPECIOTJS' WE

ARENoTpeadiibEoroa5liniF?oiltTHEAssAlLEDiesol-urtoN oF coP-BActlto ctrY-

Succintly,thedismissatoftheinstantplaintisanchoredonthe credibitity of ni iirnu"s and her testimony en se and the delay'iiiti, iiioiins or the purported clme'

Complainant'sReplytorespondent's(C)ounter-(A)ftidavitwt'tich was aot allegeclty considere;;;p"t' bacho' pertunctorily



CA-G.R. SP No. 133660Decision

made,that is, (sic) coutd no.t,and shoutd not'b9 a'source of manna

for the ,o*pi"iiLii.-rt oia nit"'ii"ir refute the fact thatrhe

comptainarrr'ii'J n-er daughtur;i Jo,yting is no gonvincing' There

was no pr,,ui'ii' ir'u'o'-*ny roi 6ig nine-y?ars $ic) she did not

reveal her ordeat to the authoritles-*'iu' obiioustv she has all the

timewithoutendangeringherlifeandtimbtounveittoanyone.Hersilence was disturbing' lt is coitrary and aboyiyble to common

expe rie nc u ro" z' |u-ri ud, a v ictim' i'o i ui p u rp o rte. Iy co mmitte d (by )

her ,*, nr,"ZiruiZ'' uer aeii'n'u' (sic) after what happeneo

beties her pointing a finser ''i'iit{nii ix13'. for a supposed

tascivious uri"i'iiritud"oy thz utter. she cou.td not have gona,

back to her father,s ptace ov iurtitt had she the (sic) harrowing

experience ;;; ne nanai ,f ii ttiic) fatlte1, The storvtineis

incredutous. lf the supreme c'ri'i iiitd rule that "waiting for 4

years before fiting a raPe ';;; iipui" the credibility of the

complainant", how m.uch more on a lapse of I years acts of

lasciviousness case ailegedly committed by a father to his own

daughter? x x x

xxxxWearenotunmindfutoftheferctthatweareonlyatthe

pre|iminary iivesiigatio1 wh9r7 the quantuf .?,f^'uid'ncenecessary

is rnerely ttrc finding of probableia'use blt \:,yustnat lose sight

ofitsessence,i.e.,toSecuretheinnocentagainsthasty,maliciousand oppressive prosecution' u;';; t; piitu't"nim from an open and

public accuiat-ioi if crime, froi tne irouble, expense and anxiety of

public trial, and also to p'ii"i tn' $)tate from useiess and

exPensive trials'

lNV|EWoFTHEFonEGotNG,theresoectiveMotionforReconsideration of the ,orptulriii, in'NPS Do'cket No' t-lNv-ll'

1011s41 (sic) and NPS qo;;; i;' Hr$v-11-02164 are herebv

DEN|ED. Thte assaited nri-ititiont of the office of the ciu

Prosecutor of Baguio dated S''iiiO"' ?0"?:11in NPS Docket

No. t-tNV-l1-02164 and octJo"ei'd' zb1 t in NPS Docket No' l-lNv-

11-1011941 (sic) are SUSTAINED'

tT lS SO RESOLVED"I5 lEmphasis in the original)'-'"1

Mergarett filed a Petition for Reviewl6 dated 16 Afril 2012 with

the Department of Justice. Prosicutor General Claro A" Arellano' for

the secretary of lustice, issued the first assaired ResolutionlT dated

27 Mav 2013 in ryps Docket-No,,- tt-101g4i' pertinent portions of

which read, viz:

"xxxx

ln the instant case' we agree with^the'fr-ndilT*s

of t e' e uU

cig proseiiriir'rr aaguio cii"r,iJ the P.rovinciat Prosecutor of La

union that there is no ,uniiriri*t'io' (iirt evidence ta pinpoint the



CA-G.R. SP No- 133660 6Decision

crimetotherespondent.Theinconsistenciesinthestatementsmade by the complainant ?s'iet't as her mother belie the charge foracts of tasciviousness. rne"ri;t*tnai nin, (9) years (sic)'lapsed

before filing of the charge impiiuit doubt as'to'the truthfulness of

lie-comPtaint' IGuidedbytheforegoing,itispristineclearthatthedisryissal

of the instani p'etition is *a'rait'd under the circumstances'

WHEREFARE'premisesconsidered'thepetitionforreviewis herebY O,Sfin.SSED'

SO ORDERED,'/.B

Mergarett filed a Motion for Beccnsicj.erationls dated 26 June

zIlg.The Motion for Reconsideiation was denied with finality by the

Secretary of Justice in the slconO assailed Resolutionzo dated 05

December 2013.

Hence, this Petition'

RUI.ENffi

Petitioner raises the following grounds for allowance of her

Petition, Ylz

(a)WhetherornottherespondentsecretaryofJusticeLeilaM'de Lima acted without'-or iiixcess of her iurisdiction, or yithgrave abuse of aiscrition amoLtnting to lack or excess of

prisaiilia,n when sni' ,utii in ner nesoLuTtoM dated

December 5, 2013 ,nrt ti,respondent Ernesto is NOI-

G.JILTYofactsoflasciviousness,whensheistaskedmerelyb determine whether-or not there' is probable cauge to'hold

respondentErnesto-fotrtrialbr-the*Tiieofactsoflasciviousness'

(b) tf by ruling NOT QUTLTY th€ r9s??ndent Secretary of

Justice Leita M. oe ffi meant that there is no probable

cause to hold tne resi,o,n;,,,| E,,,sto far triat for the crime of

acts of lascivious,uui, the saict respondent Secretary of

Justice acted withoui- or excess af hier iurislictio,, ?'-Yith

grave abuse of discritioiamounting d lack ar excess of

iurooiiiiiuruuru tiiivioence submitted (which takes the

fo rm of aff idavits an a-ri u iie - a{-f d avits)'wo uld. enge-nde r a

wett-founded betief tnui , crime cf acts of lasciviousness has

been committed ,ni"tni respondent Ernesto is probably

guitty inereof and should be hetd for trial'l1




7

Petitionercontends,interalia,that.publicrespondentactedwithout or in **,",, of, jurisdiction when She ruled that private

respondent is not guilty of acts of lasciviousness because her office is

tasked onty to Jli*r*ne whelrei o' not there is probable cause to

hord him from triuilo,. the crimL tf acts of rasciviousness; if by ruling

notguilty,publicrespondentrneantthatthereis.'nopt' 3:Pcause'the latter acted without or in **L*ttof her jurisdiction' or with grave

abuse of oircruiion amounting *o lack.. or excess of jurisdiction

because *,, uucunce submiti*t *Lre sufficient enough to engender

a well-founded belief that a ti** of acts of lasciviousnesshas been

committed and that private respondent i: ?t"b"blyguilty the-lel:}l

should be held toitti'uU ttre tinJing of probable cause doe^s not requlre

an inquiry into whether thet" iI sufficient evidence to' produce a

conviction; it is enough that lt ; believed that an act or omission

complaineo or constitJtes tne ottense charged; probable cause need

not be based on crear uno convincing "ridunte,ol".g'iltt the

investigating piosecutor relied heivity on tfie suppo-sgd statements of

Juliewhyn during the clariticatory h"earing oated 04 october 201 1 ;

Juliewhynis a mere tay*omai'*ilo Oo"n iot know the repercussions

oftheanswersshegave;Juliewhyngave'innocentanswers,whichindubitably shows that he*ni**'u'haie all the earmarks of truth'and

credibility; the investigating prosecutor erred in disregarding such

answers on the basis of her speculations and conjectures; the finding

of the investigating prose"rtoi that theru *ui no conlplaint for acts of

laseiviousneri miOe to the fnO was only a half-truth as Mergarette

and Juliewnyn'**i1o the PAO for the urrond t*: r"^::,"Iits help in

filing a complaint for u"t, of lascivrousness against priivate

respondent n;t nouoov tro, in* PAO itt"nd*d to them; the

investigating prosecutor seemeo to forgetthe congenital nature of

Firipirra *o*";',-r-nJlr.,"y "ft;;;"f"rro"suffer in sirence than endure

rhe ordear of pubric triar; whri'il *p"rrant is that they have filed the

complairrt frefbre the crim* f,ui prescribed; the ratiocination of the

acting city pioslcutor of Baguic cit.v, would reveal that he did not

resort uny*oo io a finding ;f probabte .cause,but instead' resorted

to a finding of guilt or innocenc|; the acting city p-rosec.ut?,f of Baguio

city and puoiiJ respondent Jio not make a tinoing whether the act

complarnedofconstitutestheoffensecharged,butmadeinquiryasto

whetherthere is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction; arld a

finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showingmore likely than not ttrat a ;rme nrn been committed and was

committed bY the susPect'

Privaterespondentripostes,|nteralia,that:thePetitionutterly devoid oi merit ancJ ;l;rir another case in a string

isof



CA-G.R. SP No' 133660 B

Decision

harassment cases {iledby Juliewhyn and. Emily; he -never

received

any phone ,Ji l'o' luriu*nl/n 'ffjl:g the allesed incident;

Juliewhyn never lodged a ,complainiagainst him toi tne alleged

molestation of Mergarett and the'onty insiance that Juliewhyn sought

the assistance oi tff* pAo *ur-in .lanua ry 2oo? regarding her claim

for support for Mergarett; ,luriewhyn's altegation giat he requested'

and that she consented tor, pr'irrte respondent to sleep alone beside

Mergarett to recover lost time is highly-inrprobable since he does not

normalty stay in Baguio for a i;il"p;?iocj'of, time and that Juliewhyn

does not separate hersetf f rori fii*;the altegutionu of., yu.tgurett in

her complaint is merely u piolrrt of Juliewh"yn'screative..mind; the

compraint was'.iiiiut"o'uv irii**r,ynanrl,ot by Mergarett because

three (3) months prior to the"ii[tg ft the Complaint' Mergarett never

failed to show her love, care and Concern for him; the open and

constant communication betweetr Mergarett and him belies the

accusation that he molesteJ- f,ur; if i;de;d he committed such

unfathomable act, human ,eaction suggesti-that

the victim should

manifest signs oiiruura, wf,iJf,ls anse-ttt in the instint case' and that

Jutiewhyn shourd have snierilo rur",gu,utt from him after the incident;

on the contrary,Juliewhyn utitizeo llergarett to solicit money from

him; if the aleged acr *", *J*Jrv .o*ritt*o in 2001, it is surprisingthat a period oT ,ore than #;igi vuutu elapsed b?l?t"^:, complaint

was fired against him uni l*bry,, tou,. (+) TolJlt*lllot to the

prescriptiru 6ui"-of filing the case; there is a glaring.motive behind

the f,ing of the compraint ,"r" n,i and his sisier fired an opposition

to the probate proceedingu oi'ih*i'Juif'*t'u.holographic will which was

fited by their sister Ramona ii"r""santo, 1"na'iona" for brevity) and

the latter is the live-in partnel oiEmirv; r'/grgar.gtt gl.tYi-tg.d jn March

2'14and sent her graduati,on piJrt* io nir''iwitn ttris message at the

back, "Dear Papa, I know the past 4yearsf'ave been a whirlwind for

all of us. But a day never purrLO by without me thinking of you: if you

are okay, and if you are tninl*g 6i-*e too' I miss you-so much' ln

those 4 years, I think I lost u tutnLr. But now, I still do believe that our

paths will cross. I am sorry for the wrong o*tiiions I have made' I

love you, Veronica,,;: n the recent text messages ot Mergarett with her

sister Julien Helen, lvtergaret was ,o*" fot what her mother'

Juliewhyn, and ninang ="i[v'i:9 :" l11' Mergarett disclosed also

through teximessageJ to -lutien Helen tfre'reiso"n behind the array of

cases filedby Jutiewhyl- ,i"i"ifr,lil,

Y"iniiett.wrote-

a personal

letter to him oh oz Aprir zati ict<nowledsirnii'::l-^*: contributedto his ditficult situation; and the elements" of the crime of acts of

lasciviou=n*it are wanting in the instant case'

Strippedofverbiage,thethresholdissueinthisspecialcivilaction tor certiorariis wrre*rer or not puniir tu*pondent committed



{'ri {

CA-G.R' SP No' 133660Decision

orave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

i-n dismissing the petitioner', p?iitio"n tor neviewand in denying her

Motion f or Reconsideration'

We find in the negative'

(T)hecourtscouldinterveneintt-resecretaryofJustice,sdeterminaiion of probaote caul;;t t through a speciai civil uttlo?^foi

certiorari. That happens wnen the secretarv of Justice acts In a

limited sense like a quasi-jud;i,i 'ffi"u'cf the executive department

exercisingpo*"i, akin to if,or-* oti court of law' But the requirement

for such intervention was stiil toitrre petitioner to demonstrate clearlythat the Secretary of Justice co**lttud grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or u*rurJ- oi jurisdlction'22 Grave abuse of

discretion xxx means such capriciou' 3|,d whimsical exercise of

judgment as is uqriuuf"nt

to.lailoilurisOiction'23 Unless such a clear

demonstration irlniJr, tne iriliv"nlion is disa*owed in deference to

the doctrine of separation'Ji

'p-oui*rr]r Under

-the doctrine of

separationofpowers.,.thecourtshavenorighttodirectlydecidematters over which full discr"ii"^"v authority fias been delegated to

the Executive Brancrr of the Government'or to substitute their gwn

judgments for 6,rt of tne rxeculive Branch, represented in this case

by the oepartm"nt ot .lustice](u;J that the) settled (rule) is that the

courts will not interfere witn ih} executive determination of probable

cause for the pLrrpose of filing an int'otmation' in the absence of grave

The decision of whether or not to dismiss the criminal complaint

against tr,,-uilused

depends on the sound discretion of the

prosecutor. courts will not ;n'#eie with the conduct o{ 'preliminary

investigations, xxx or in in* O*turmination of what':constitutessufficient probable cause "for the filing of the. cgrresponding

information against an offendei .26 Apubtic- [rosecutor's determination

of probable cause -- tfrat iJ,"one made for the purpose of filing an

information in court is essentially an executi'e function and'

therefore, generary ries beyond th"e puru'-oi judiciar scrutiny'27

Consequently, the Court ,onuldu.s it a sound judicial policy to'refrain

from interfering in the "oni6t-ofpreliminary investigations and to

reave the Doi a wide ratitule ot uiscretion in the determination of

what constitutes sufficient Ju,oun.*to estabfish probabre cause for

the pror".riion of the rrroriJ^-ottuig*ii'o consistent with this

policy,Courtsdonot,,u,*,,"thesecretaryot.,lustice'sfindingsandconclusions on the matt", oi probabte cause'" (Thus)' courts of law

are prectuoei"il; Jistrroi-ng-thu fifrng-: ot pu'oti".prosecutors and

the DOJ on the existenc* or-non-existence ot'prooable cause for the




10.

purposeoftilingcriminal.inJormations,unlesssuchfindingsaretainterj with gravE unrr" of oiscrettn, amounting to lack or excess of...jurisdiction-3o ;

(Therefore), the- partY seeking th9 .writ of certiorari must

establish that t'h;'bO; Sbcretary u*eriit*d- (heq executive power rn

anarbitraryanddespoticmann",,byreasonofpassionorpersonalhostitity, and thi u6rt" of discr&ion hust be so patent and gross as

wourd amount to an evasion o, to a unitaterar refusar to perform the

dutyenjoinedoitoactincontemplationc,flaw'31

Probablecause,forpurposesoffitin,gacriminalinformation,has been defined as such tacis-is are sufficient to engender a well-

founded belief that a crime nus-o**n committed and that tne accused

is probabty guilty thereof, li " the existence of such facts and

circumstances aswould excite the belief in a reasonable mind' acting

on the facts witnin the knowreoge of thg,prosecutor' that the person

charged was guilty of tfre crim}ior which he is to be prosecuted' A

findingofprobablecauseneedsonlytorestonevidenceshowing

that,more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was

committed bY the accuseo'"'

Here,inholdingthatitagreeswith-thefindingsoftheDeputyCity prosecutoi-J niguio Ciil;;J.the Provincial Prosecutor of La

Union that there is no sufficient e'ridence to pinpoint the crime to

private r"rpono"nt,33 pubric responoent clearly made a.determination

that there was no probable ,*** for the prosecution of private

resPondent.

(F)or the purpose oi filing acriminal information' (probable

cause) exists when the taci, "u,.* sufficient to engender a well-

foundedbeliefthatacrimehasbeencommittedandthattherespondent is probably gr1{ tr,eieot., lt does not mean "actual or

positive ,urJu'I nor Otes ii'irpott absolr-rte certainty; rather' it is

merely based on opinion and reasonab,le belief and, aS Such, does

not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to

procure a conviction;"it is eno,gh tn,t it is believed that the act or

omission complained of tontiitui"s the offense charged's

Thecriminalcomptaintforactsoflasciviousness.*"'filedbypetitione, *iirr"ir',, otti.u of tlre City Prosecutor' Baguio City on 23

August 201i',d inereas ^tfrelascivious acts complained of were

allegedlycommittedonoa.oecember2a02,Assuch,ittoo}<morethan nine (9) years after the alteged commission of the lascivious

acts, beforeif,6 criminal comilainii'i" filed by her' Petitioner claims




11

thatJuliewhynsoughtnq'pfromthePAOforasecondtimetocomplain about inJ f**O ,rrl' .o**itted- by private respondent

against her tp"tition"ri, untortJnJi*fy, no PAO iawyer attended to

her.36 Thus, p";*ion*r vainly --piffi;d that her inaition in filing the

criminat comptaint for a rong_iiliu *u* due to their disappointment

with the non-Jriion oi *re-pno ano by the thought that private

respondent is u"rJ*v"i *lg has money to s,geno tor-tne dismissal of

any case ,r,ui *irr' t" titeo'Iga'lt]'

I'i'i Despite such claims'

petitioner faitei to pr"r"nt facts lufficient to engender a well-founded

belief that a c,me has been .o*rirt"o ano tnai private respondent is

pt"OrOfV guittY thereof '

lfitweretruethatJuliewhynrygntto]rr.ePAotoreportthesaidincident,thenthesaidofficeshouldhavearecordthereof.However,petitioner faileJ io pr"r*nt un,-,"rtificatio-n^oidotument tg show that

Juliewhyn indeed sought uuliriun"? fro_T,. ,h* PAo regarding the

alleged lascivious acts committed by privite respondent against

petitioner. nt'-*frry -ioy"g,o'"| :gtiutu piosecutor Cacho in the

Resolution dated bO October 201 1 , 3s apfiroved by Deputy City

prosecutor Agunos of BagriI'&i, it 'r'iiu*nyn reatty wanted iustice

for her daugfiter Mergarett, sne si-routO have reported the matterto

the potice so that thtratter ilJimmediatelv assist her,in f,ing the

complaint; the po _ge officeri know that a"t'minur

complaint should

be filed with the office ot *re protttutg' *l-1i" is nothing on record to

show that Juliewhyn evercJ*pluin" -rj reported the-matter to the

potice; and if un. inou*o *r,ii'i5 tn" pno, #; come she did not find

time to go to the police women's Desk to ait< for assistance for 'her

daughter.3s The ro,oshows ,n" t"r6*ing' r i"Noii""of Pre.-Litigation3e

dated 16 Janu ary zoo2 iurrJo'-nv in- PAo stating that Juliewhyn

sought their assistance in-tonnection*itt^' privite.respondent's

ref usat to supporr Mergar*tt;?J a uu]9avit bateo 19 September

ZOll executed by Adminisi'Jiu* Assistant iV Marten Misa of the

pAO-Baguio city stating thai'iliou tro*] the support case'-their office

has not received any othei compraint from Juriewhyn.a0 petitioner

likewise failed to buttress"h;;

'lgto'nOuOallegation that private

respondent uses his *.9n"y-and tat""" to-r''iu the cases filed

against him dismisseq,r, :l;rrty-sr,owing ir'ut Juliewhyn's thought

regardingthesameisonvintherealmofhersuspicionandimagination'

AskeenlyfoundbyProvincialProsecutorBumacodofLaUnion,thereWaSnopersuasivereasonwhvfornine(9)longyears,petitione,, iO not ,eruat l-',", ordeal to irre authorities and that

petitioner,u uit*nre on tne maiier is disturning as she had all the time'

without endangering her fiie inO limb, to rJveal the same; and she



CA-G.R. SP No. 133660 12

Decision

courd nothave gone back to her {ather's prace by hersel{ if she

indeed suffered L harrowing experience in fris hands'o' Thus'the

alleged ,.t, oi lasciviou"n"rr"rl**itt*o by private respondent on

the petitioner are oouottrr coniJe;;; ih" .absenceof a reasonable

explanation for the utter qrPy oiinuition of petitioner and Juliewhyn'

for more than nine (9) years, in-'*po,ting the commission of the same

to the police uut brit,"r. srir'-iuiay"ano vacillation in making a

criminal accusation impair tn" "ruoibilityoi-- uor' petitioner and

Juriewhyn ano-ri'noer such rongi*lui*o .n,tge unworthy o1 belief '

Furthermore,duringthe04october20llclarificatoryhearing,petitioner stated that she never told her grandParents or her siblings

about what private respondent did to her; and she also admitted that

she continued to visit private i"'ponOent in his house' all by herself '

even after the alleged incide;;'#;p;;?d'* Private respondent also

subrnitted photographsoa ot p"iitiori& witn him and his other children

on several occaiions after the commission of the alleged lascivious

acts. lndeed, if private ,*rponJuni ,o**itted the said lascivious acts'

then We find if,at the tor"Jo]ng .;* _of^petitioner contradict her

alegations.t[ is atso contraiy to- nu*rn 3,lnerience

for,petitioner's

rnother Jutiewhyn to hav" uild*ud her oaugrlter to go to herfatl'ier's

place after tfre daid incident, ;;h more, it Jfre was ill by herself'

Fr:omtheforegoingdisquisition,Wefindthatpublicrespondentcommitted no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess

of jurisdictio; H sustaining th" findings-ot- Uot[ the Deputy City

prosecutor of Baguio City and it''L p'o'iricial Prosecutor of La Union'

WHEREFoRE,premisesconsidered,thePetitionisDENIED'

No Pronouncement as to costs'I

'

SO ORDERED.

cEL?AHIiln$tntJRtBncoGoChairPerson

CERTIFIED TRUE/Pfri\a

--6'/^Tfi /,t tvra I OPERIO

{),.:',i';. I l'f COUfl

CorJrr tll Apnegls



Itr


WE CONCUR:

,;.r13

CERTIFIED TRUE

ATTY.AL&I,A I OPtsR'Of)rvnim Clerk of Counr r:ln of Apperh

FRAfimm'*6?ffiBNrEAssociate Justice

MELffi8'ilA:C]8an?r.rcAssociate Justice

gEFr r c.Arlo-hl-

Pursuant to Article vlll, section 13 st the constitution' it is

hereby certified that the eonctlsions in the above Decision were

reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of

theropinion of the Court

cEL'Nt:m€filffi"oGoAssociate Justice

ChairPerson, Thifteenth Division

2)court of appeals 133680

Documents