By: Riyani Marie M. Nartea; 05 Jan.5, 2019
FACTS:
The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aseoche (The Law Firm) was engaged as counsel by the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 03-110 instituted before Branch 203. On July 29, 2005 judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, prompting the defendant in the same case to appeal. However, appeal was disallowed and consequently a writ of execution is issued to enforce the foregoing judgment. Judgment became final and executory. The Law Firm alleged that as early as April 4, 2006, it had been following up on the issuance of a writ of execution to implement the July 29, 2005 judgment. However, Atty. Fria vehemently refused to perform her ministerial duty of issuing said writ. Atty. Fria posited that the draft writ of execution was not addressed to her but to Branch Sheriff Jaime Felicen (Felicen), who was then on leave. On July 31, 2006, the prosecutor issued a Memorandum recommending that Atty. Fria be indicted for the crime of Open Disobedience. Atty. Fria subsequently filed a Manifestation with Motion dated November 17, 2006, stating that the Court had rendered a Decision in the case of Reyes v. Balde II (Reyes)18 – an offshoot of Civil Case No. 03-110 – wherein it was held that Branch 203 had no jurisdiction over the foregoing civil case. On January 25, 2007, the MTC ordered the dismissal of the crime of Open Disobedience against Atty. Fria for lack of probable cause. It found that aside from the fact that Atty. Fria is a judicial officer, The Law Firm failed to prove the existence of the other elements of the crime of Open Disobedience.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the dismissal of the case for Open Disobedience against Atty. Fria valid for lack of probable cause?
HELD:
Yes, While a judge's determination of probable cause is generally confined to the limited purpose of issuing arrest warrants, Section 5(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure explicitly states that a judge may immediately dismiss a case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause x x x.
In this regard, so as not to transgress the public prosecutor's authority, it must be stressed that the judge's dismissal of a case must be done only in clear-cut cases when the evidence on record plainly fails to establish probable cause – that is when the records readily show uncontroverted, and thus, established facts which unmistakably negate the existence of the elements of the crime charged. On the contrary, if the evidence on record shows that, more likely than not, the crime charged has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty of the same, the judge should not dismiss the case and thereon, order the parties to proceed to trial. In doubtful cases, however, the appropriate course of action would be to order the presentation of additional evidence.1âwphi1
In other words, once the information is filed with the court and the judge proceeds with his primordial task of evaluating the evidence on record, he may either: (a) issue a warrant of arrest, if he finds probable cause; (b) immediately dismiss the case, if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause; and (c) order the prosecutor to submit additional evidence, in case he doubts the existence of probable cause.32 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
Applying these principles to the case at bar would lead to the conclusion that the MTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing Criminal Case No. 46400 for lack of probable cause. The dismissal ought to be sustained since the records clearly disclose the unmistakable absence of the integral elements of the crime of Open Disobedience. While the first element, i.e., that the offender is a judicial or executive officer, concurs in view of Atty. Fria's position as Branch Clerk of Court, the second and third elements of the crime evidently remain wanting.
Hence, since it is explicitly required that the subject issuance be made within the scope of a superior authority's jurisdiction, it cannot therefore be doubted that the second element of the crime of Open Disobedience does not exist. Lest it be misunderstood, a court – or any of its officers for that matter – which has no jurisdiction over a particular case has no authority to act at all therein. In this light, it cannot be argued that Atty. Fria had already committed the crime based on the premise that the Court's pronouncement as to Branch 203's lack of jurisdiction came only after the fact. Verily, Branch 203's lack of jurisdiction was not merely a product of the Court's pronouncement in Reyes. The said fact is traced to the very inception of the proceedings and as such, cannot be accorded temporal legal existence in order to indict Atty. Fria for the crime she stands to be prosecuted.
Proceeding from this discussion, the third element of the crime, i.e., that the offender, without any legal justification, openly refuses to execute the said judgment, decision, or order, which he is duty bound to obey, cannot equally exist. Indubitably, without any jurisdiction, there would be no legal order for Atty. Fria to implement or, conversely, disobey. Besides, as the MTC correctly observed, there lies ample legal justifications that prevented Atty. Fria from immediately issuing a writ of execution.#END
