THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 258547. August 23, 2022.]
PO1 MARTIN L. FERNANDEZ, petitioner, vs.CORAZON C. CRUZ, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 23, 2022, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 258547 (PO1 Martin L. Fernandez v. Corazon C. Cruz). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 remonstrates against the Decision2 dated 9 February 2021 and the Resolution3 dated 21 December 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 114005. The CA issuances affirmed the Decision 4 dated 6 March 2019 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of City of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 78, dismissing the complaint for damages based on malicious prosecution filed by petitioner PO1 Martin Fernandez and the corresponding counterclaim filed by respondent Corazon C. Cruz.
The Petition fails for raising a question of fact, which is beyond the ambit of a petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner essentially implores the Court to determine whether respondent was motivated by malice and bad faith in filing the criminal case against him. Suffice it to state that the existence of bad faith is a question of fact and is evidentiary. It requires the reviewing court to examine the evidence to find out if there was indeed substantial proof to show bad faith. However, this Court is not a trier of facts. It is not duty-bound to analyze again and weigh the evidence introduced in and considered by the courts below. 5
In any event, the gravamen of malicious prosecution is the deliberate initiation of an action with the knowledge that the charges were false and groundless. 6 Here, respondent sought the assistance of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to investigate the incident wherein her son was shot in the head. She merely relied upon the determination by the CHR of the names and identities of the defendants in the cases to be filed. Plain as a pikestaff, it was the CHR, and not respondent, which named petitioner as among those liable. 7 Veritably, respondent did not act maliciously in instituting the cases against petitioner and the other persons identified by the CHR.
Along this grain, it bears stressing that both the RTC and the CA are one in their findings that respondent was not impelled by malice or bad faith in filing the cases against petitioner. Absent any extraordinary circumstance justifying otherwise, the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court. 8 Petitioner miserably failed to demonstrate that the CA committed any reversible error as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this case.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 9 February 2021 and the Resolution dated 21 December 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 114005 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 8-22.
2.Id. at 27-37. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser (now retired) with the concurrence of Associate Justices Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig and Carlito B. Calpatura.
3.Id. at 39-40. Penned by Associate Justice Carlito B. Calpatura with the concurrence of Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig.
4.Id. at 59-72. Penned by Judge Gregorio S. Sampaga.
5. See Meyr Enterprises Corporation v. Cordero, 742 Phil. 320, 331 (2014).
6. See Agustin-Se v. Office of the President, 760 Phil. 371, 396 (2016).
7.Rollo, pp. 35-36.
8. See Torres v. People, 803 Phil. 480, 487 (2017).