7) vs de lima co 133660
DESCRIPTION
ernesto de los santos + university of manilaTRANSCRIPT
Republic of the FhiliPPinesCOURT OF APPEALS
Manila
THIHTEENTI-I DIVISION
MEHGANE]T VERONICA DELOS SANTOS,
Petitioner,
VETSUS
CA-G"R. SF No. 133660
Members:
LIEREA-LEAGOGO,ChairpersonDIAMANTE, andSADANG, JJ.
Promulgated: AUGl3 iHON. LEILA M. DE LIMASECRETARY OF JUSTCE;AND EBNESTO DE LOSSANTOS,
Respondents.
v---------- --------X
DECESI@Md
LIBREA-LEAGOGO, C.C,, J,:
Before this Court is a Petition tor Certiorarf datedr 17 Januarv
ZA14 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Resolutions
dated 27 May 20132 and 05 December 20133 issued by pub'lic
respondent Secretary of the Department of Jutstice, in the case
entitted " Mergarett Veronica Delos Santos v. Atty. Erlesto Delas
Santos," docketed as ft/PS Docket /Vo. 1 1-101941 . The assailed
Resoluiions dismissed the petitioner's Petition for Revieu/ and der":ied
the Motion for Reconsideration with finality'
Private respondent filed his commenta dated 31 March 2{li'+.
Per JRD verificatlon,5 no reply was filecl as per CMIS entry' Tht'ts, tlte
third paragraph of the Resolutiono dated 27 Februarv 2O'lt:; is
reiterated and the Petition is submitted for decision'
CA-G.R. SP No. 133660Decision
A ComplainVAffidavit? dated 23 August 2A11 for acts oflasciviousness was filed by complainant Mergarett Veronica DelosSantos ("Mergarett," for brevity) against respondent Ernesto DelosSantos ("Ernesto," for brevity) at the Office of the City Pro$ecutot',
Complainant alleg ed, inter alia, lhal: on or about 0B December2OA2, when she was eight (B) years old and a Grade 2 elementarystudent, Ernesto reqrested her mother,,Juliewhyn R. Quindoza("Juliewhyn," for brevity), if he could sleep beside her in bed;Juliewhyn consented and slept in a separate room since the latterthought that Ernesto wanted to spend time with her alone; in bed,while she was facing the wall, she felt something rubbing against herbuttocks; she looked behind her and saw that her father is rubbing hispenis on her buttocks; ErneSto also began touching her breast; shewas very frightened and could not scream or move so she just closedher eyes and pretended to be sleeping; the following morning, shetold her mother to leave immediately for Bulacan but failed to tell her
of the incident; she and Juliewhyn went to Bulacan and spentChristnras and New Year there; on January 2AO3, she disclosed toher rnother the incident involving her father; Juliewhyn called Ernesto
ancl confronted him about the inodent; and to date, she is still afraid
to be alone in the same room with her father Ernesto'
ln his Counter-Aff idavits dated 23 Septemb er 2011 , Ernesto
alleged, inter alia, lhal: he did not commit the crime charged; the
co*lplaint is devoid of merit and is just another case in a string of
harassment cases filed by Juliewhyn and Emily de Leon. ("Emily," tor
brevity); the allegations of Mergarett ancl Juliewhyn in their affidavit
ate piiently false and fabricated; it was stated by Mergarglt- that the
alleged aci complained of transpired on 0B December.,2$02 while
Juliewhyn stated that the incident happenecJ on 07 December 2OOZ or
the day of Mergarett's first Holy Communicn whereas the first l*loly
Communion of [Iergatett was held on 08 December 2001; he did not
receive any phone-call from Juliewhyn in January 2OA3 confrontinghim about ihe incident; Juliewhyn never lodged a complaint against
him for the alleged molestation ln the Public Attorney's Office (PAO)
in Baguio Citi; the only instance when Juliewhyn sought the
assistince of PAO against him was in January 2002 regarding her
claim for support of Mergarett; PAO iawyer Atty. Merly Espinosa("Atty. Espinosa," for Orevity; prepared a Notice of Pre-litigation; the
allegation'of Juliewhyn tfrai she consented to his reque.sl to sleep
alone with Mergarett in a room is highly improbable considering that
CA-G.R. SP No. 133660Decision
Mergarett was of tender age and could not be sep.arateO from her
motfier; the allegations of Mergarett in her complaint is gnly ? product
of Juliewhyn's imagination; such complaint was initiated by Juliewhyn
and not by Mergarett as three (3) months prior to the filing of the
complaint,'Mergirett never failed to show her love, care and concern
for him, through text messages; the constant communication between
I-rin'r and Mergarett belies the accusation that he molested her; if
indeed he committed the alleged acts, then Juliewhyn should have
shielded Mergarett away from him; instead, Juliewhyn utilized
Mergarett to solicit money from him and for him to be subject to
Juliiwhyn's whims and caprices; Mergarett spent time with him and
his other children from 2OO4 to 2008; it is surprising that the
complaint was filed after the lapse of more than nine (9) years and
eight (B) months and barely four (4) months before the'prescriptivepJtioO ior filing a case; given the long history of Emily and
Juliewhyn's enthusiasm to pressure him to withdraw his opposition tothe pro-bate of his father's alleged holographic will, the inevitable
conclusion follows that the filing of the instant case, after nine (9)
years and eight (B) months from the time of the alleged incident, is
simitarly motivaied; the elements of the crime of acts of
lasciviousness are wanting in the case at bar; and the closeness
between him and Mergarett is that of a father and daughter
relationship which could not be interpreted to be lewd or malicious.
ln the Reply Joint(-)Affidavite dated 07 October 2011 of
Juliewhyn and Meigar*tt, they alleged, inter a6a, lhat: the case of
acts of lasciviousneis filed against Ernesto is not a harassment case
but a genuine case that actuitty toof place on the day of the first Holy
Communion of Mergarett; the iacts stated in the complaint(-)affidavit
are all true and co-rrect and not fabricated; they may have had a
memory lapse regarding the date and year of the f irst Holy
communion when tne tewo acts complained of took place, taking into
consideration the length of time that elapsed but the timemark (first
Hoty communion) would indicate the actual date when the said'acts
of lasciviousness were committed by Ernesto; the incident when she
went to PAO and was assisted by Atty. Espinosa is different from the
occasion when she went there to complain about the lewd acts
committed by Ernesto against Mergarett, where no PAO lawyer
attended to her so nothing came out of her complajnt; the text
messages were not sent by Mergarett and were merely fabricated by
ErnestS; the lapse of nins (9) y-ears and eight (B) months from the
commission of the lascivious acts does not negate its Commission;
the failure to file the case was due to financial conStraints, and the
threats and intimidation of Ernesto'
CA-G.R. SP No. 133660Decision 4
A Resolutionlo dated 06 Octob er 2a11 in NPS Docket No. 1 1-
101g41 (for acts of lasciviousness) was issued by Associateprosecutor Attorney Arlene Valerie G. Cacho ("Associate_Prosecutor
Cacho," for brevityi, and approved by Officer-in-Charge/Deputy Citypiosecutor Gloria" b. ngunos of the City of Baguio, recommending
the dismissal of the case for lack of probable cause, pertinent
portions of which read:
"xxxx
lf c:omplainant was truly aggrieverJ and if her mother truly
wanted justiie for her, her mother, being of age, would have
immediatety filed a complaint after the incident in question andwould not'have waited for many years or more than nine (9) years
to assert their rights. While it is true that delay in the filing ofcriminal complaints does not affect the veracity of thecomplaint, when the delay is unreasonable and unexplained, itbecomes an indication of the talsity of the charge being tiled'
MHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfutly
recommendec! that ine above-entitteci case filed against
Respondent Ernesto Delos Santos be D|SMISSED for"lack of
probabtecauSe,,nJ(Emphasisrntheoriginal)
Mergarett, assisted by her mother ..luliewhyn, filed.a Motion for
Reconsideration,,' to which Ernesto filed a Comrnent/Opposition'13
Provincial Prosecutor of La Union Danilo C. Bumacod ("Provincial
Prosecutor Bumacod," for brevity), ActinE City Prosecutor-oJ Baguio
city, issued a Joint Resolutionla dated 16 March 2012 in NPS Docket
ttto. ffUV-l 1-02164 (for violation of R.A. No.9262) and rylS No' l-
tNV-11-1A1g41 (for acts of lasciviousness) denying th1 Motion for
Reconsideration and sustaining the Baguio City Prosecutor's
Besolution dated 06 october 2011 in rvps No. l-tNV-l1-101941, and
the Resolution dated 30 september 2A11 in NPS Docket No' l-lNV-
11-02164, pertinent portions of which reetd, viz'
"xxxx
1IMPLA|NANT,SARGUMENTSARESPEcIottS,WEARE NOT PERSTJADED TO DEPART FROM THE ASSAILED
RESALUTION OF COP-BAGUIO CITY-
succintly, the dismissal of the instant plaint is anchored on
the credibitity of the witness and her testimony en se and the delay
in the reporting of the purported crime'
Complainant,sReplytorespondent,s(C)o,unter-(A)ffidayltwhich was aot altegeclly'consiclered by F>ros' Cacho' pertunctorily
CA-G.R. SP No. 133660Decision
made, that is, (sic) coutd not and should not be a source of manna
for the ,oipiiinLnt. tt did not at a1 refute the fact that the
complainanti and her daughtels storytine is not convincing' There
Wasnopersuasivereason-*hyforlongnine-years(sic)shedi|,1,otreveal her ardeat to the authorities *ie,', obviously she has all the
time without endangering her tife and limb to unveil to anyone' Her
silence was disturiing.-lt is contrary and abominable to common
experience ti i rava[ed victim no lbss purportedly committed (by),
her own naturat father. Her demeanour (sic) after what happened
beties her potinting a finger against her father for a supposed
lascivious act coimitted-by the tatter. She could not have gone
back to her father's place'by hersetf had she the (sic) harrowing
experienc" iii ne nandi of his (sic) father. The storyline is
incredulaus" tf the supreme court would rute that "waiting f9r ayears before fiting a raPe case impairs the credibility of the
complainant", how much more on a lapse of I years acts of
lasciviousr"i" case atlegedly committed by a father to his own
daughter? x x x
xxxx
we are not unmindful of the fetct that we are only at the
pretiminary investigation where the quant.um of evidence necessary
is rnerely the finding of probable cause but we must not lose sight
of its essence, i.e., to secure the innocent against hasty, maliciaus
and oppre.ssiye prosecution, and to protect him from an open and
public u"rririoh of crime, irom the iroubte, expense and anxiety of
pubtic trial, and also to protect the (s)tate from useless and
exPensive trials.
TNVTEWOFTHEFOREGCTNG'therespectiv,e.Mg!!?!lotReconsideration of the comptainants in NPS Docket No' l-lNV-|1-
tOitg1 (ii| an1 NPS locket No. t-thtv-11'02164 are hereby
DEN1ED. The assailed Resolutions of the office of the cityprosecuto, oi suguio dated september 30,.2_011 in NPs Docket
No. l-tNV-\1-02164 and october 6, 2011 in NPS Docket No' l-lNV-
1 1-101 1941 (sic) are SUSTAINED'
tTlSSoRES2LVED,,I5iEmphasisintheoriginal)o,::
Mergarett filed a Petition for Reviewlo dated 16 April 2012 with
the Department of Justice. Prosecutor Genera.l cl{o A.'tl-ulluno' for
the Secretary of Justice, issued the first assailed ResolutionlT dated
27 May 2013 in NPS Docket No. 1 1-101941 , pertinent portions of
which read, viz:
"xxxx
ln the instant CaSe, We agree wittt the findings of the Deputy
City prosecutor ot'siiuio lity"an! the Provinciat Prosecutar of La
lJnion that there is io sufficient to (sic) evidence to pinpoint the
CA-G.R. SP No. 133660Decision
crime to the respondent. The inconsistencies in the statementsmade by the complainant as well as her mother belie the charge foracts of lasciviousness. The fact that nine (9) years (sic).'1srys6
before fiting of the charge implicates doubt as to the truthfulness ofthe comPlaint.
IGuided by the foregoing, it is pristine clear that the dismissal
of the instant petitio, is warranted under the circumstances.
yHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitiOn for review
is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED,'IB
Mergarett filed a Motion for Reccnsiclerationle dated 26 June
ZArc. The Motion for Reconsideration was denied with finality by the
Secretary of Justice in the second assailed Resolutionzo dated 05
December 2413.
Hence, this Petition.
RUL[Nffi
petitioner raises the following grounds for allowance of her
Petition, viz
(a) whether or not the respondent secretary of Justice Leila M.
de Lima acted without or in excess of her iurisdiqtion, or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
iurisdiction when she ruled in her RESOLUTION dated"December 5, 2013 that the respondent Ernesto is NO't*GUTLTY of acts of lasciviousness when she is tasked merely
n Aeter*ine whether or not there is probable cause to hold
respondent Ernesto for trial fur the crime of acts oflasciviousness.
(b) lf by ruting NOT Gt.ttLTY the respondent Secretary of' ' Justice Lei6 M. de Lima meanr that there is no probable
cause to hold the respondent Ernesto for trial for the crime of
acts of lasciviousness, lhe said respondent Secretary ofJustice acted without or exces1 af her iurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack o_r.excess of
iurisdiction because the evidence submitted (which takes the'form
of affidavits and counter-affidavits) 'would engender a
well-founded belief that a crime cf acts of lasciviousness has
been committed and the respondent Ernesto is probably
guitty thereof and should be hetd for trial.z1
CA-G.R. SP No. 133660Decision
Petitioner contends , inter alia, that: public respondent acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction when she ruled that private
respondent is not guilty of acts of lasciviousness because her office is
tasked only to delermine whether or not there is probable cause to
hold him from trial for the crime of acts of lasciviousness; if by ruling
not guilty, public respondent meant that there is no probable cause,
tne iittei acted without or in excess of her jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
because the evidence submitted were sutficient enough to engender
a well-founded belief that a crime of acts of lasciviousness has been
committed and that private respondent is probably guilty thereof and
should be held for trial; the finding of probable cause does not require
an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to'produce aconviciion; it is enough that it is believed that an act or omission
complained of constitutes the offense charged; probable Cause need
not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt; the
investigating prosecutor relied heavily on the supposed statements of
Juliewfryn Juring the clarificatory hearing dated 04 October 2011:
Juliewhyn is a mLre laywoman who does not know the repercussions
of the anSWerS she give; Juliewhyn gave innocent anSWerS, which
indubitably shows that her answers have all the earmarks of truth'and
credibilityi tne investigating prosecutor erred in disregarding such
answers on the basis of nei speculations and conjectures; the finding
of the investigating prosecutor that there was no conrplaint for acts of
laseiviousness miOb to the PAO was only a half-truth as Mergarette
and Juliewhyn went to the PAO for the second time to seek its help in
filing a complaint for acts of lasciviousness against priivate
res[ondent nut nobody f rom the PAO attended to them; the
investigating prosecutor seemed to forget the congenital nature of
Filipirra women, that they often prefer to suffer in silence than endure
the ordeal of public trial; what is imporlant is that they have filed the
complairrt before the uime has prescriired; the ratiocination of the
acting city prosecutor of Baguic city would reveal that he did not
resort anymore to a finding of probable Cau$e, but instead, resorted
to a finding of guilt or innocence; the acting city prosecuto.r of Baguio
City and fubfii respondent did not make a finding whether the act
complained of .ontiitutes the offense charged, but made inquiry as to
whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction; arld a
finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing
more likely than not that a crirne nas been committed and was
conrmitted bY the susPect.
7
Private respondent ripostes, inter alia, that: the Petition
utterly devoid oi merit ancl is just another case in a stringIS
of
CA-G.R. SP No. 133660Decision
harassment cases filed by Juliewhyn and Emily; he never received
any phone call from Juliewhyn regarding the alleged incident;
Ju[iewhyrr never lodged a comptaint against him for the alleged
molestation of Mergaiett and the only instance that Juliewhyn sought
the assistance of the PAO was in January 2OO2 regarding her claim
for support.for Mergarett; Juliewhyn's allegation that he requested,
and that she conserrted for, private respondent to sleep alone beside
Mergarett to recover lost time is highly in'rprobable since he does not
norrially stay in Baguio for a long periocj of time and that Juliewhyn
does not separate fterself from liim; the allegations of Mergareti in
her Complaint is merely a product of Juliewhyn's creative mind; the
complaint was initiated by Juliewhyn and not by Mergarett because
three (3) months prior to the filing of the Complaint, Mergarett never
tailed to show her love, care and concern for him; the open and
constant communication between Mergarett and him belies the
accusation that he molested her; if indeed he committed such
unfathomable act, human reaction suggests that the victim should
manifest signs of trauma, which is absent in the instant cage, and that
Juliewhyn ifrould have shielded Mergarett from him after the incident;
on the contrary, Juliewhyn utilized Mergarett to solicit money from
him; if the alleged act wa-s actually committed in 2001, it is surprising
that a period oT more than nine (9) years elapsed before a complaint
was filed against him and barely four (4) months prior to the
prescriptive date of filing the case; there is a glaring.motive behind
in" titing of the Cornplai-nt since he and his sister filed an oPposition
to the piobate proceedings of their father's holographic-will which yas
filed by their sister Ramoia Delos Santos ("Ramona", for brevity) and
the latter is the live-in partner of Emily; Mergarett graduated .in March
2A14 and sent her gra'duation picture to him with this message at the
;;;k, ;D;;r-p;pa, I know the past 4 years have been a whirlwind for
all of us. But a day never passed by without me thinking of you: if you
are okay, and it Vo, ut* ihinking of me too. I miss you so much' ln
those 4 years, itf in3 I lost a fathLr. But now, I still do believe that our
paths will cross. t am sorry for the wrong decisions t have made' I
love you. Veronica'; in the recent text messages of Mergarett with her
sister Julien Helen, Mergarett was sorry for what her mother'
Juliewhyn, and ninang Emily, did to him; Mergarett.disclosed also
through text messages to Julien Helen the reason behind the array of
cases filed by Juliewhyn against him; Mergarett wrote a personal
letter to him on 07 April 2o14-acknowledging rrat srre has contributed
to his difficult situation; and the elements of the crime of acts of
lasciviousness are wanting in the instant case.
stripped of verbiage, the threshold issue in this special civil
action tor Certiorariis vinetner or not public respondent committed
CA-G.R. SP No. 133660 ':: I
Decision
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
In dismissing the putition"r's Petitio-n for Review and in denying her
Motion for Reconsideration.
We find in the negative.
(T)he courts could intervene in the secretary of Justice's
determination of probable cause only through a special civil action for
certiorari. That hrpp"nt when the Secretary of Justice. acts in aIimited sense like a quasi-judicial officer of the executive department
exercising powers akin to those of a court of law' But the requirement
for such intervention was still for the petitioner to demonstrate clearly
that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction'22 Grave abuse of
discretion xxx means such capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.23 Unless such a clear
demonstration is made, the intervention is disallowed in deference to
the doctrine of separation of powers.'4 under the doctrine of
separation of po*eis, the courts have no right to directly decide
mafiers over which full discretionary authority has been delegated to
the Executive Branch clf the Government, or to substitute their gwn
judgments for that of the Executive Branch, represented .in. this case
by the Department of Justice, (and that the) settled (rule) is that the
courts will not interfere with the executive determination of probable
cause for the purpose of filing an information, in the absence of grave
abuse of discretion.2s ,
The decision of whether or not to dismiss the criminal complaint
against tht accused depends on the sound discretion of the
pior*rrtor. Courts will noi interfere with the conduct of ;preliminary
investigations, xxx or in the determination of what -constitutes
sufficient probable cause for the filing of the corresponding
information against an offender.26 A pubric [rosecutor's determination
of probable cause that is, one made fgr the purpos-e of filing an
information in court is essentiaily an executive function and,
therefore, generally lies O"V"rJ tf..,b pale of judicial scrutiny'27
Consequently, the Court considers it a sound judicial policy to'refrain
from interfering in ine conduct of preriminary investigations and to
reave the Doi a wide ratitude of discretion in the determination of
what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for
the prosecution of the supposed offenders'2s consistent with this
policy, courts do not reverse the Secretary of Justice's findings and
conclusions on the matter of probable cause.2e (Thus), courts of law
are precluded from disturbing the findings of public prosecutors and
the DOJ on the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the
CA-G.R. SP No. 133660Decision
purpose of filing criminal informations, unless such findings aretaintecj with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of
(Therefore), the party seeking the writ of certiorari mustestablish that the DOJ Secretary exercised (her) executive power inan arbitrary and despotic manner, by reason of passiOn Or perSonalhostility, and the abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross aS
would amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform theduty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law.31 ",,
Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information,has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the accusedis probably guilty thereof. lt is the existence of such facts andcircumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, actingon the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the personcharged was guilty of the crime for which he is to be prosecuted. Afinding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showingthat, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it wascommitted by the accused.32
Here, in holding that it agrees with the findings of the DeputyCity Prosecutor of Baguio City and the Provincial Prosecutor of La
Union that there is no sufficient e,ridence to pinpoint the crime toprivate respondent,33 public respondent clearly made a determinationthat there was no probable cause for the prosecution of private
respondent.
(F)or the purpose of filing a criminal information, (probable
cause) exists when the facts are sufficient to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the
respondent is probably guilty thereof. It does not mean "actual orpositive Cause'i nor does it import absolute certainty; rather, it is
merely based on opinion and reasonable belief and, as Such, does
not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to
procure a conviction; it is enough that it is believed that the act or
omission complained of constitutes the offense charged'e
The criminal complaint for acts of lasciviousness was filed by
petitioner with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Baguio City on 23
August 201 1 ,35 whereas the lascivious acts complained of were
alldgedly committed on 08 December 2A02. As such, it took more
tn4i nine (9) years after the alleged commission of the lascivious
acts, before ihr6 criminal complaint was filed by her. Petitioner claims
r 10
CA-G.R, SP No. 133660Decision 11
that Juliewhyn sought help from the PAO for a second time to
complain about th; lewd acts committed by private respondent
against her (petitioner), unfortunately, no PAO lawyer atte-nded to
h;;.r. Thus, petitioner vainly explained that her inaction in filing the
criminal .complaint for a long time was due to their disappointment
with the non-action of the PAO and by the thought that private
respondent is a lawyer who has money to spend for the dismissal of
any case that rnrill be filed against him.37 Despite such claims,
puiition*r failed to present facts iufficient to engender a well-founded
belief that a crime has been committed and that private respondent is
probably guiltY thereof .
If it were true that Juliewhyn went to the PAO to report the said
incident, then the said office should have a record thereof' However'
petitioner failed to present any certification or.document{Q_show that
Juliewhyn incleed sought assistance f rom the PAO re.garding the
alleged lascivious acts committed by private respondent against
petiiioner. As aptly found by Associate Prosecutbr Cacho in the
Resolution dated 06 October 2011, os approved by Deputy City
Prosecutor Agunos of Baguio city, if Juliewhyn really wanted justice
for her daugfiter Mergareit, she should have reported the matter to
the police so that the latter could immediately assist her:in filing the
complaint; the police officers know that a criminal complaint should
be filed with the office of the prosecutor; there is nothing on record to
show that Jutiewhyn ever complained or reported the matter to the
police; and if she inOeed went to the PAO, how come she did not find
i;r t, go to tne police Women's Desk to ask for assistance for 'her
daughter.38 The ,ottrshows tnL tottowing: 1)-Notice of Pre-Litigation3e
dated 16 Janu ary 2AAZ issued by the PA9 stating that Juliewhyn
sought their assistunru in connection with private respondent's
ref usal to support Mergarett; and 2) Affidavit dated 19 September
2011 executeity nOhiinistrative Assistant lV Marlen Misa of the
PAO-Baguio City stating that aside f rom the support case' their office
has not received any ttner complaint from Juliewhyn'40 Petitioner
likewise failed to buttress her ungrounded allegation that private
respondent uses his money and ltature to have the cases filed
against him JismisseO,n' clbarly showing, that Juliewhyn's thought
regarding the same is only i; the realm of her suspicion and
imagination.
As keenly found by Provincial Prosecutor Bumacod of La
union, there was no persuasive reason why for nine (9) tong Y"ltu:petitioner did nct revear her ordear to f'e authorities and that
petitioner's silence on the matter is disiurbing as she had all the time'
without enOangering f,*t life and limb, to reveal the same; and she
CA-G.R. SP No. 133660 12Decision
could not have gone back to her father's place by herself if she
indeed suffered i harrowing ex[erience in his hands.az Thus, the
alleged acts of lasciviournurt-ibmmitted by private respondent on
the petitioner are doubfiut consioering the.absence of a reasondble
explanation for the utter delay or inact]on of petitioner and Juliewhyn'
for more than nin" (-g) years, in reporting the commission of the same
to the police ,rintrit,"r. such betay and vacillation in making a
criminal accusation impair tne credioitity of both petitioner and
Juliewhyn and LnOer such long-belated charge unworthy of belief '
Furthermore, during the 04 octob er 2011 clarificatory hearing'
petitioner stated that she never told her grandparents or her siblings
about what private respondent did to her; and she also admitted that
she continued to visit private i"tponOent in^ his house' all by herself '
even after the alleged incideni f,upp*ned 13. Private respondent also
submitteo pnotogtu"G* of peiitioner with him and his other children
on several occaiions after the commission of the alleged lascivious
acts. lndeed, if private ,""ponJunt committed the said lascivious acts'
then we find that the toregoing acts of petitioner contradict her
allegations. lt is also contraiy to" fruman experience for,petitioner's
mother Juliewhf., to-f,ure attdwed her claughter to go to'her fatlie1s
place after the said incident, mucrr more, if she was all by herself'
From the foregoing disquisition, we find that public respondent
committed no graviaOuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction -in
sustaining the findings of notn the Deputy City
prosecutor of Baguio City and ihn Prouiricial Prosecutor of La Union'
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition'is DENIED'
SO ORDERED.
cEL?AH'iltS"*Ef [PnGocoChairperson
CERTIFIED TRUEpfrf\a
-//ATTY AT I\.,(4 I O?ERIO{),,r:},. , 'r,f COUn
C.oulr ut Apnealr
I
CA-G.H. SP No. 133660Decision
WE CONCUR:
ORIGINAT SIGNED. -_FHANEFITO N, DIAMANTHAssociate Justice
ORIGIN'AI SICII:DMELCHOB Q.C. SADANG
Associate Justice
P E LT I.FI CAT I-Q [I
pursuant to Article Vlll, $estion 13 of the Constitution, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reacned in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
theropinion of the Court
ORIGINAL SIGNXDCELIA C, LIBREA-LEAGOGO
Associate JusticeChairperson, Thirteenth Division
13
CERTIFIED TRUE @E['IL4/
ATTY.ALMA I OPtsR'Of}vrim Clerh of Counr r:.x1 gf Aprpetlt
*