SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11628. April 16, 2018.]
EDEMAR S. LUCERNAS, ELANIE O. REYES, ADONIS S. LUCERNAS, CYNTHIA B. NARVAS, AND RUBEN N. NERONA, complainants, vs.ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR TERESITA CARIGMA-PALOS, SENIOR ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR LEILANI MIRANDA RODRIGUEZ, AND PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR RAYMOND JONATHAN B. LLEDO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated16 April 2018which reads as follows: cHECAS
"A.C. No. 11628 (Edemar S. Lucernas, Elanie O. Reyes, Adonis S. Lucernas, Cynthia B. Narvas, and Ruben N. Nerona v. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Teresita Carigma-Palos, Senior Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Leilani Miranda Rodriguez, and Provincial Prosecutor Raymond Jonathan B. Lledo)
After a judicious examination of complainants Edemar S. Lucernas, Elanie O. Reyes, Adonis S. Lucernas, Cynthia B. Narvas, and Ruben N. Nerona's (complainants) allegations, the Court resolves to DISMISS the administrative complaint against respondents Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Teresita Carigma-Palos, Senior Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Leilani Miranda Rodriguez, and Provincial Prosecutor Raymond Jonathan B. Lledo (respondents) absent any showing of a prima facie case against them.
Jurisprudence provides that errors, if any, committed by prosecutors in their determination of probable cause cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings but should instead be assailed through the proper legal remedies. 1 Resort to and exhaustion of the proper remedies and a final ruling thereon are prerequisites for the taking of appropriate measures against those concerned, whether of criminal, civil, or administrative nature. 2 In this case, complainants' failure to resort to the proper remedies to assail respondents' finding of probable cause for unjust vexation warrants the dismissal of their complaint. Moreover, absent evidence to the contrary, respondents are presumed to have regularly performed their official duties, 3 as in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Spouses Chua v. Tan-Sollano, A.C. No. 11533, June 6, 2017. The Court stated thus: "in Maquiran v. Judge Grageda, the Court held that alleged error committed by judges in the exercise of their adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings but should instead be assailed through judicial remedies. Here, the same principle applies to prosecutors who exercise adjudicative functions in the determination of the existence of probable cause to hold the accused for trial in court."
2. See Re: Verified Complaint of AMA Land, Inc. against Hon. Danton Q. Bueser, Hon. Sesinando E. Villon and Hon. Ricardo R. Rosario, Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, 701 Phil. 462, 468 (2013).
3. See Spouses Chua v. Tan-Sollano, A.C. No. 11533, June 6, 2017. See also Yagong v. Magno, A.C. No. 10333, November 6, 2017.