SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 223835. August 31, 2016.]
ELMIRA BERNARDO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 31 August 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 223835 — Elmira Bernardo vs. People of the Philippines
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for (1) lack of service to the Court of Appeals (CA); (2) lack of verified statement of material dates of receipt of the assailed decision and filing of the motion for reconsideration thereto; and, (3) failure to show that the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 130501 committed any reversible error in issuing its assailed Decision dated May 27, 2015 and Resolution dated March 21, 2016 which respectively dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed therewith and denied the Motion for Reconsideration thereto.
Petitioner argues in the main that the trial court judge in this case did not make a personal and independent assessment of the facts and circumstances when she found probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against her. She avers that the judge merely relied on the findings of the Ombudsman without taking into consideration the assertions and defenses raised in her counter-affidavit. Moreover, petitioner contends that she should not be considered as a conspirator in the absence of clear and positive evidence that she participated in the resolve to commit the crime.
"Whether or not there is probable cause for the issuance of warrant for the arrest of the accused is a question of fact based on the allegations in the Informations, the Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor, including other documents and/or evidence appended to the Information." 1
As can be gleaned from the disquisition of the trial court judge in her Order of July 20, 2011 in Criminal Case Nos. 06-246248 and 49, she (1) examined the Resolution and Order of the Ombudsman finding probable cause for the crime charged against petitioner and her co-accused; and (2) evaluated pertinent documents such as the Commission on Audit's Post Inspection Report, Certificate of Delivery and Acceptance, and Certificate of Completion and Acceptance. These negate petitioner's assertion that no independent assessment of the evidence was made and that the judge merely relied on the findings of the Ombudsman in the issuance of warrants of arrest against her and her co-accused.
Besides, it must be stressed that the determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. 2 Such judicial discretion, as a general rule, is not interfered with in the absence of grave abuse of discretion.
Anent her insistence that she should not be deemed as a conspirator, suffice it to say that this is a matter of defense that should be threshed out in the trial proper.
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to depart from the ruling of the CA.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 27, 2015 and Resolution dated March 21, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 130501.
Petitioner's Letter of May 26, 2016 submitting a USB containing soft copy of the petition and its annexes in PDF form is NOTED. aCIHcD
SO ORDERED. (Brion, J., on leave)."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Sarigumba v. Sandiganbayan, 491 Phil. 704, 720-721 (2005).
2. Ocampo v. Hon. Ephrem S. Abando, 726 Phil. 441, 465 (2014).