FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236069. April 4, 2018.]
GLEN ERIC CEMBRANO, petitioner,vs. CHIU HAN SING CEMBRANO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 4, 2018which reads as follows: acHTIC
"G.R. No. 236069 — Glen Eric Cembrano vs. Chiu Han Sing Cembrano
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension seeking an additional period of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file his Petition for Review on Certiorari.
After carefully reviewing the allegations, arguments, and issues in the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court further resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in issuing its Amended Decision dated July 13, 2016 and Resolution dated October 25, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 08012 to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. On the contrary, the CA's Amended Decision is in accord with the facts and applicable laws and jurisprudence.
Petitioner assails the CA's Amended Decision contending that respondent's petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the wrong remedy since the proper procedure should have been an appeal to the Secretary of Justice, which was a plain and adequate remedy available to the respondent. Petitioner insists that the CA should have dismissed the petition for violating the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
While the general rule is that a petition for certiorari is available only when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the Court upholds the authority of the CA to correct acts committed by the prosecutorial officers which are tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
In Verzano, Jr. v. Paro, 1 a case which similarly involved a ruling of the Regional State Prosecutor assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA, the Court held that: ScaCEH
In the case at bar, while it is generally the Secretary of Justice who has the authority to review the decisions of the prosecutors, this Court agrees with the CA that the same precedential principles apply in full force and effect to the authority of the CA to correct the acts tainted with grave abuse of discretion by the prosecutorial officers x x x. The authority of the CA is bolstered by the fact that the petition filed before it was one under Rule 65, therefore it has the jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Regional State Prosecutor acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
In the present case, the Court finds that the CA correctly found that the Regional State Prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the order of suspension of the criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22).
A petition for suspension of a criminal action based on the existence of a prejudicial question may be granted only upon showing that: (1) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action; and (2) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. 2
The Court finds that there was no prejudicial question that justified the Regional State Prosecutor's suspension order because both Civil Case No. 08-0120129 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 14 and the criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 can proceed independently. The Court has consistently held that the agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored checks is irrelevant to the prosecution for violation of B.P. 22. 3 The reason for this is because the cause or reason for the issuance of a check is inconsequential in determining criminal liability under B.P. 22. What B.P. 22 punishes is the mere act of issuing a worthless check.
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that petitioner correctly availed of the remedy of certiorari to assail the suspension order of the Regional State Prosecutor as it was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Thus, the CA correctly set aside the order of the Regional State Prosecutor. TIEHDC
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the July 13, 2016 Amended Decision and October 25, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 08012.
SO ORDERED." Sereno, C.J., on leave; De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 641 Phil. 330, 339 (2010).
2. Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.
3.Dreamwork Construction, Inc. vs. Janiola, et al., 609 Phil. 245, 257 (2009).