FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237408. June 18, 2018.]
ELMER GALZOTE, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 18, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237408 — Elmer Galzote v. People of the Philippines
This Court resolves to GRANT the Motion for Extension of Time filed by petitioner Elmer Galzote seeking for an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on March 2, 2018 within which to file his Petition for Review on Certiorari.
This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari and accordingly resolves to DENY the same for: (1) lack of proof of service on the Court of Appeals (CA) of a copy of the Petition for Review on Certiorari in violation of Sections 3 and 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; and (2) failure to show that the CA committed any reversible error in its September 15, 2017 and February 1, 2018 Resolutions in CA G.R. SP No. 150304.
In his Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner seeks a reversal of the September 15, 2017 Resolution of the CA finding that there was probable cause that the crime of frustrated murder had been committed and accordingly in not dismissing the case. Petitioner also prays to set aside the February 1, 2018 Resolution of the CA that denied his motion for reconsideration of the September 15, 2017 Resolution. aCIHcD
It is worth stressing that the CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court that made an independent assessment of the evidence for the sole determination of whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. Under Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, a judge is mandated to personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence, and if probable cause exists, a warrant of arrest may be issued. The judge need not examine the entire records of the case. 1 However, he must have sufficient supporting documents, such as the complaint, affidavits, counter-affidavits, sworn statements of witnesses, or transcripts of stenographic notes, if any, upon which to make his independent judgment or to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause. 2
In this case, the judge was in possession of the complaint, the counter-affidavits of the petitioner, the sworn statements of private respondents and their medical certificates, and several other relevant documents that aided him in determining the existence of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrests. In fact, the judge stated in the January 16, 2017 Order that he personally evaluated "the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence, not merely 'relied' on it." 3
The CA therefore did not err in ruling that there was no basis for dismissing the case. The evidence was sufficient for a determination of probable cause in issuing a warrant of arrest. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not have to be presented at this stage of the criminal proceedings. 4 "The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man and not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial." 5 Moreover, the dismissal of the case would be wasteful and uncalled for. "In the absence of clear lack of merit or intention to delay, justice is better served by a brief continuance, trial on the merits and final disposition of the cases before the court." 6 cHaCAS
ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari.
This Court also resolves to DELETE Froilan M. Pacris, Christopher John Cadaoas, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cagayan-Sanchez Mira, and the Office of the Solicitor General, as party respondents pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45, of the Rules of Court. ScHADI
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-de Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Mayor Abdula v. Hon. Guiani, 322 Phil. 757, 775 (2000).
2.Id.
3.Rollo, p. 104.
4.Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp, Inc., 481 Phil. 550, 566 (2004).
5.Id. at 566-567.
6.Kent v. Micarez, 660 Phil. 475, 483 (2011).