SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246755. June 3, 2019.]
RONALDO GALIDO LUGTU, petitioner, vs.ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE MARIA LUISA LESLE G. GONZALEZ-BETIC, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 90, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246755 (Ronaldo Galido Lugtu v. Acting Presiding Judge Maria Luisa Lesle G. Gonzalez-Betic, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 90, and the People of the Philippines)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 for failure of petitioner Ronaldo Galido Lugtu (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 90 (RTC) gravely abused its discretion in issuing the February 18, 2019 2 and April 23, 2019 3 Orders denying his motion to exclude or suppress evidence 4 and granting the motion to amend the Information. 5 AIDSTE
As correctly ruled by the RTC, the difference in the date of the commission of the offense as stated in the Information and in the documents attached thereto was attributable to a clerical error, and thus, can be corrected through an amendment of Information. 6 It is settled that the amendment in the Information which only seeks to correct inadvertent clerical errors made through oversight, i.e., changing the date to state the true and actual date of the commission of the offense charged, is a matter of form which does not prejudice or impair the rights of the accused, 7 and thus, can be done with leave of court, 8 as in this case.
Moreover, the instant petition is likewise dismissible for being violative of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Verily, a becoming regard for judicial hierarchy dictates that petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari against first level courts should be filed with the RTC, and those against the latter, with the CA, before resort may be had before this Court. 9 A direct invocation of the Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari should be allowed only when there are exceptional and compelling reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition, 10 which are absent in this case. SDAaTC
With the denial of the instant petition, petitioner's prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction is necessarily DENIED.
SO ORDERED. (CAGUIOA, J., on official leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-37.
2.Id. at 42-43. Signed by Acting Presiding Judge Maria Luisa Lesle G. Gonzalez-Betic.
3.Id. at 46.
4. Titled "Motion to Exclude and/or to Suppress and/or to Strike from the Record Prosecution Evidence," id. at 126-133.
5. Not attached to the rollo.
6. See rollo, p. 42.
7. See People v. Rivera, 144 Phil. 687, 691 (1970). See also People v. Villaruel, 428 Phil. 449, 456 (2002).
8. Section 14, Rule 110 of the REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE provides:
Section 14. Amendment or substitution. — A complaint or information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights or the accused[.] (Emphasis supplied)
9.A.L. Ang Network, Inc. v. Mondejar, 725 Phil. 288, 297 (2014).
10. See Rayos v. The City of Manila, 678 Phil. 952, 958 (2011).