SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237533. June 6, 2018.]
LLOYD BORABO PALMA, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, AS REPRESENTED BY MAXIMO K. CUARTERO AND JOSEPHINE M. TINIO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 June 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 237533 (Lloyd Borabo Palma v. People of the Philippines and Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, as represented by Maximo K. Cuartero and Josephine M. Tinio)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the August 31, 2017 Decision 1 and February 14, 2018 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 135712 for failure of petitioner Lloyd Borabo Palma (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the lack of grave abuse of discretion on the part of Presiding Judge Myrna V. Lim-Verano (Judge Lim-Verano) of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 160 in denying petitioner's Omnibus Motion for the judicial determination of probable cause.
As correctly ruled by the CA, there was no need to conduct another judicial determination of probable cause, as Judge Lim-Verano had carefully assessed the resolution of the public prosecutor, as well as the other supporting documents appended thereto when she issued the order of arrest against petitioner. Case law states that in determining the existence of probable cause in the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the issuing judge must first satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice, 3 which requirement was fully satisfied in this case. Besides, the judge can dismiss the case for lack of probable cause only in clear-cut cases when the records readily show uncontroverted, and thus, established facts that unmistakably negate the existence of the elements of the crime charged, 4 which were not shown in this case. aScITE
SO ORDERED. (PERALTA, J., recused himself from the case as his spouse concurred in the assailed CA Decision and Resolution. DEL CASTILLO, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated May 9, 2018)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 237-250. Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Elihu A. Ybañez concurring.
2.Id. at 259-261.
3. See Inocentes v. People, 789 Phil. 318, 331 (2016), citing People v. Castillo, 607 Phil. 754, 765 (2009).
4. See The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aseoche v. Fria, 716 Phil. 105, 112 (2013), citing Delos Santos-Dio v. CA, 712 Phil. 288, 307-308 (2013).