SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236400. March 7, 2018.]
AARON ALEXIS ALBAO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, JUDGE IGNACIO C. BARCILLANO, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC-BRANCH 13, LIGAO CITY, EDMUNDO GUAZON y BALBUENA AND SCOTCH LOVENDINO y CALPE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 March 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236400 — Aaron Alexis Albao versus People of the Philippines, Judge Ignacio C. Barcillano, Jr., in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 13, Ligao City, Edmundo Guazon y Balbuena and Scotch Lovendino y Calpe
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Order 1 dated August 14, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ligao City, Branch 13 in Criminal Case No. 8195, the Court resolves to DISMISS the same.
The Court notes at the outset that the Petition is dismissible for failure to observe the rule on hierarchy of courts. The Rules are explicit that the Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not exclusive, but rather shared with the regional trial courts and the Court of Appeals (CA). Hence, it is settled that a petition for certiorari assailing the interlocutory orders of the RTC should be filed with the CA and not directly with the Court. 2 In this regard, the direct invocation of the Court's original jurisdiction may only be allowed for special and important reasons as clearly and specifically set out in the petition. 3
In the instant case, however, petitioner failed to even allege, at the very least, any special or important reason for the allowance of the Petition. Nevertheless, even if the Court were to examine the allegations of the Petition, it remains indeterminable why a resort to the CA would be an inadequate remedy as would justify a direct resort to this Court. ITAaHc
Be that as it may, even if the foregoing procedural rule were to be relaxed, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion committed by the RTC in denying the Omnibus Motion dated June 22, 2017 (Omnibus Motion).
Stripped of all verbiage, petitioner is essentially questioning the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor's (OPP) determination of the proper offense to charge accused. In particular, petitioner assails the downgrading of the offense as alleged in the complaint as against the offense eventually charged in the Information, claiming that there was collusion between the prosecution and the defense for monetary consideration. The Court finds petitioner's arguments untenable.
Firstly, petitioner's imputation of ill motive and conspiracy are highly speculative and wholly unsubstantiated, which cannot carry any weight in a court of law. Such allegations deserve scant consideration from the Court.
Secondly, in criminal cases where the State is the offended party, it is an established principle that all actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal; he may or may not file the complaint or information, follow or not follow that presented by the offended party, according to whether the evidence in his opinion, is sufficient or not to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 4
In this case, from the issuance of the OPP's Resolution recommending the filing of an Information for frustrated homicide, petitioner should have filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) with the OPP to question such finding. However, as borne out in the Petition, the MR was only filed after the corresponding Information was already filed with the RTC; from that point on, it was already the RTC that had control over the case. Accordingly, petitioner's arguments pertaining to the existence of qualifying circumstances justifying a charge for frustrated murder could no longer be entertained by the RTC as the latter cannot make a judicial determination of probable cause of an offense which is not properly alleged in the Information, or that of an offense higher than what is stated in the Information.
At this juncture, it bears stressing that in Rule 65 petitions, it is the petitioner that bears the burden of establishing his claim of grave abuse of discretion. As a corrective writ, the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is reserved only for jurisdictional errors, in cases where a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. CHTAIc
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that petitioner failed to establish his claim of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in denying the Omnibus Motion, there being ample evidence on record supporting such denial. The instant Petition should therefore be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the instant Petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 83-88. Penned by Presiding Judge Ignacio C. Barcillano, Jr.
2.Candelaria v. RTC, Br. 42, City of San Fernando, Pampanga, 739 Phil. 1, 10 (2014).
3.Id. at 11.
4.Crespo v. Mogul, 235 Phil. 465, 472 (1987).