SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 209432. February 26, 2014.]
MANJINDER KUMAR @ JAMES KUMAR, WILLIAM SALAS, RET. P/C INSP. RENATO APOLINARIO AND ARVIC ALVIS NGIE, petitioners, vs. PO1 MARK EDWARD P. ZAPATA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 26 February 2014 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 209432 — Manjinder Kumar @ James Kumar, William Salas, Ret. P/C Insp. Renato Apolinario and Arvic Alvis Ngie v. PO1 Mark Edward P. Zapata
In connection with the shooting/kidnapping incident which transpired in the afternoon of December 20, 2010 along F.B. Harrison, Pasay City, respondent PO1 Mark Edward P. Zapata (Zapata) was charged, along with several other persons, with Direct Assault with Frustrated Murder, Attempted Murder, and Carnapping with Double Homicide. After the Preliminary Investigation, the Pasay City Prosecutor's Office recommended the filing of Informations. Thus, three Informations, docketed as Crim. Case Nos. R-PSY 11-03-106 (Attempted Murder), R-PSY-11-03108 (Direct Assault with Frustrated Murder) and R-PSY-11-03707 (Carnapping with Double Homicide) were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 108.
During the trial, Zapata simultaneously filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the City Prosecutor's Office, and an Omnibus Motion with the RTC. Zapata prayed that the RTC defer the proceedings; hold in abeyance the issuance of warrant of arrest or quash the warrant if already issued; and conduct a judicial determination of probable cause. DHIaTS
The Prosecutor's Office granted Zapata's motion for reconsideration. On the other hand, the RTC denied Zapata's Omnibus Motion. The Office of the City Prosecutor thus filed before the RTC a motion to amend the Informations by deleting the name of Zapata as one of the accused.
In an Order dated October 19, 2011, the RTC denied the Prosecutor's motion to amend. Zapata moved for reconsideration. At the same time, he asked for the inhibition of Presiding Judge Ragasa.
In an Order dated January 18, 2012, the RTC denied Zapata's motions for reconsideration and inhibition.
Zapata thus filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA. In its Comment, the OSG agreed with Zapata that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying the motions. The OSG opined that the RTC failed to make an independent assessment of the merits of the case. 1
In a Decision 2 dated June 21, 2013, the CA granted the Petition. It held that once the case is filed in court, the latter has the sole discretion on how to decide the same; however, it is also imperative for the trial judge to make his own assessment and evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence or lack of probable cause. The CA found that the RTC failed in this regard when it denied outright the People's motion to amend/withdraw Information vis-a-vis Zapata without any justification to support its resolution; and that it failed to make an independent and competent assessment of the pieces of evidence submitted before it in determining probable cause.
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
ACCORDINGLY, the Orders dated October 19, 2011 and January 18, 2012 are NULLIFIED and a new one rendered allowing the AMENDMENT of the Informations . . . DELETING the name of PO1 MARK EDWARD ZAPATA as accused therein.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner Manjimer Kumar (Kumar) filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In a Resolution 3 dated September 30, 2013, the CA denied the same.
Hence this Petition.
Notably, the CA found that the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it summarily dismissed the prosecution's Motion to Withdraw Information without citing any justification therefor and without passing upon the evidence submitted before it. Interestingly, however, instead of remanding the case to the RTC for a conduct of a proper, independent and competent determination of probable cause, the CA arrogated upon itself the task of determining whether probable cause exists. The CA proceeded to examine the evidence presented and whether Zapata was properly identified as one of the assailants. This is not proper in a certiorari proceeding. Instead, it was incumbent and prudent upon the CA to have remanded the case to the RTC for determination of probable cause.
ACCORDINGLY, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 21, 2013 is MODIFIED in that its directive allowing the amendment of the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. R-PSY-11-03-106 (Attempted Murder), R-PSY-11-03108 (Direct Assault with Frustrated Murder) and R-PSY-11-03707 (Carnapping with Double Homicide) and dropping the name of PO1 Mark Edward Zapata as accused, is DELETED. Instead, the case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 108 to conduct a competent and independent determination of probable cause. (Brion, J., on leave; Leonen, J., designated as Acting Member per S.O. No. 1643). DcIHSa
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 50.
2. Id. at 36-56; penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Zenaida T. Lagapate-Laguilles.
3. Id. at 34-35.