SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 210265. February 17, 2014.]
ARNIE DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. PEDRO CRISOSTOMO AND ERIBERTO P. CRISOSTOMO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 17 February 2014which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 210265 (Arnie De Guzman v. Pedro Crisostomo and Eriberto P. Crisostomo).
After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the April 29, 2013 Amended Decision 1 and November 22, 2013 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 115793 for failure of Arnie De Guzman (petitioner) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in holding that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in finding the lack of probable cause for the crime of estafa against Eriberto P. Crisostomo (respondent).
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner failed to prove that the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its assailed resolutions. "It is well-settled that courts of law are precluded from disturbing the findings of public prosecutors and the DOJ on the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the purpose of filing criminal informations, unless such findings are tainted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The rationale behind the general rule rests on the principle of separation of powers, dictating that the determination of probable cause for the purpose of indicting a suspect is properly an executive function; while the exception hinges on the limiting principle of checks and balances, whereby the judiciary, through a special civil action of certiorari, has been tasked by the present Constitution 'to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.' 3
Moreover, petitioner failed to attach copies of the Resolutions of the Office of City Prosecutor and the Regional State Prosecutor, material portions of the record required under Sections 4 (d) and 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. (Brion, J., on leave; Leonen, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 1636.) TAScID
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 33-37. Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Socorro B. Inting, concurring.
2. Id. at 38.
3. Aguilar v. DOJ, G.R. No. 197522, September 11, 2013, citing Alberto v. CA, G.R. Nos. 182130 and 182132, June 19, 2013.