SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225312. September 14, 2016.]
MERLINDA R. MARQUESES, petitioner, vs. BRGY. CAPTAIN JENNIFER REYES, KAGAWAD ENICEO LUPON NOPRADA, SITIO CHAIRWOMAN JUDITH PARRENO, SITIO SECRETARY LUCY LAISA, CALIXTO BRONCANO, ELIAS ATACADOR, ROGER ABANTO DIOMEDES BORNILLA, NESTOR ARIAS, LIBERATO MABESA, MILA DAYAO, LORETO GAMUROT, PURIFICATION OLINO, EDITHA BUAMA AND ADOLFO BASBAS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 September 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225312 — Merlinda R. Marqueses vs. Brgy. Captain Jennifer Reyes, Kagawad Eniceo Lupon Noprada, Sitio Chairwoman Judith Parreno, Sitio Secretary Lucy Laisa, Calixto Broncano, Elias Atacador, Roger Abanto Diomedes Bornilla, Nestor Arias, Liberato Mabesa, Mila Dayao, Loreto Gamurot, Purification Olino, Editha Buama1and Adolfo Basbas
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in denying the Petition for Certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 133177.
Petitioner contends that on February 22, 2012, she was detained at the Barangay Police Security Investigation Section. Thereafter, she was transferred to the Antipolo Police Station — Mayamot, and later on incarcerated at the Main Police Station of Antipolo. Her detention, according to petitioner, showed that she was denied due process, and there was urgency that her complaints be resolved. She claims that said denial of due process and urgency permit her to file the Petition with the CA even without a prior motion for reconsideration (MR) on the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Resolution dated October 10, 2013.
Petitioner's contentions are without merit. Being an extraordinary remedy availed of only in the absence of plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the very nature of a Rule 65 petition requires that the office issuing the decision or order be first given an opportunity to correct itself. This implies that prior MR must be filed on the assailed issuance before resorting to a Rule 65 petition. 2 While there are exceptions to this rule, the Court finds that in this case, petitioner's mere allegation of denial of due process and urgency does not excuse her direct resort to a petition for certiorari before the CA. 3
Moreover, petitioner argues that the CA erred in finding that the DOJ committed no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaints. She affirms that she established probable cause against respondents because the supposed malicious letter against her was circulated and such circumstance supports the libel case against respondents. Also, she asserts that her detention on February 22, 2012 amounted to grave coercion, and the uttered words of Barangay Captain Jennifer Reyes amounted to grave threats.
The Court is not convinced. Unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the courts are precluded from disturbing the determination of public prosecutors and the DOJ on the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the purpose of filing a criminal information. Here, the CA properly held that the DOJ did not gravely abuse its discretion. This is because in its October 10, 2013 Resolution, the DOJ sufficiently explained the reasons for the dismissal of the complaints. There, the DOJ stresses that the complaints failed to establish the elements of the offenses imputed against respondents, and to specify the participation of each respondent on these offenses. Clearly, no probable cause was shown to exist against them. 4 SICDAa
Given all these, the CA did not err in denying the Petition for Certiorari.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed December 11, 2015 Decision and June 17, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 133177.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. In petitioner's Sinumpaang Salaysay and the City Prosecutor's Resolution, Editha's surname was Jebulan and Buama was the surname of a certain Benito; it is nonetheless noted that the DOJ and the CA did not include Benito as one of the respondents, and referred Editha as Editha Buama; rollo, pp. 38, 79, 94, 117.
2. Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. vs. Philtranco Workers Union — Association of Genuine Labor Organizations, G.R. No. 180962, February 26, 2014, 717 SCRA 340, 355.
3. Pascual, Sr. vs. Caniogan Credit and Development Cooperative, G.R. No. 172980, July 22, 2015.
4. Alberto vs. Court of Appeals, 711 Phil. 530, 550, 553 (2013).