FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234632. June 6, 2018.]
ED CHRISTIAN A. LOPEZ, petitioner, vs.SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND LETICIA LOPEZ JORMAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 6, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234632 (Ed Christian A. Lopez v. Secretary of the Department of Justice and Leticia Lopez Jorman). — The motion for extension of time to file petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. This, notwithstanding, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in affirming the resolutions of the Secretary of the Department of Justice which found no probable cause against private respondent for threat and verbal abuse in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. cSaATC
An examination of the CA's decision shows that it correctly concluded that the Secretary of Justice did not abuse his discretion in passing upon and affirming the finding of lack of probable cause by the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP). The determination of the existence of probable cause lies within the discretion of the public prosecutor after conducting a preliminary investigation upon the complaint of an offended party. Probable cause is defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. While a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed, and that it was committed by the accused, it demands more than bare suspicion. 1
Specifically, one of the purposes of a preliminary investigation is to inquire about the commission of a crime and the connection of the accused with it, in order that he may be informed of the nature and character of the crime charged against him, and, if there is probable cause for believing him guilty, that the State may take the necessary steps to bring him to trial. 2 Here, as correctly held by the CA, the culpability of private respondent is uncertain. Other than his bare allegations, petitioner failed to adduce any other evidence that would establish the connection of private respondent to the crime charged. We sustain the observations and factual findings of the CA that petitioner only claimed that he was familiar with private respondent's voice after the OCP had already dismissed the complaint, and that the records are bereft of evidence showing that petitioner had personally and closely known private respondent for quite some time.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated May 17, 2017 and September 29, 2017, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 140655 are AFFIRMED. CHTAIc
The petitioner's manifestation with motion to amend petition for review on certiorari and admit attached document, praying for the amendment of the petition filed on November 27, 2017 stating that the birth of the petitioner in footnote number 8 of the petition be changed from January 26, 1993 to January 26, 1988 and that the thereto attached copy of NSO authenticated birth certificate of the petitioner be admitted and form part of the petition is NOTED.
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Tijam, J., on official leave; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Callo-Claridad v. Esteban, G.R. No. 191567, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 185, 199.
2.Id. at 198, citing Arula v. Espino, G.R. No. L-28949, June 23, 1969, 28 SCRA 540, 592. Emphasis ours.