Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49836:gr-167910-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:03:34+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 167910 - Mustapha M. Gandarosa v. Evaristo Flores, et al.
MUSTAPHA M. GANDAROSA, Petitioner, v. EVARISTO FLORES and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision,2 dated 24 August 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77163, dismissing petitioner Mustapha M. Gandarosa's Petition for Review of the Order3 dated 24 July 2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Iloilo City, Branch 31, which denied the motion of the prosecution to amend the Information by excluding petitioner from the charge in Criminal Case No. 00-52992 for Libel, and its Resolution,4 dated 12 April 2005 denying reconsideration thereon.
On 23 June 2000, the Daily Informer, a newspaper of daily circulation in Iloilo City, touted the banner headline, "Gandarosa Wants Flores Out for Personal Convenience? 'Back-door-pay' anomaly exposed."5 According to the article, petitioner, in his capacity as the Assistant Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) - Regional Office, revealed to members of the media that high-ranking BIR officials, among them Regional Director Sonia Flores and Revenue District Officer Willy Narnola, are involved in anomalous transactions to favor certain taxpayers in the assessment of their taxes. A photo of Sonia Flores and Willy Narnola was similarly plastered on the newspaper's front page. This prompted respondent Evaristo Flores, husband of Sonia Flores and with the conformity of the latter, to file a Complaint (I.S. No. 2075-2000) with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iloilo City against petitioner, Manny Regalado Alcalde, the author of the aforesaid article; and Rey P. Alcalde and Bernie G. Miaque, editor and publisher, respectively, of the Daily Informer.
On 21 August 2000, Investigating Prosecutor Nora Causing-EspaÃ±ola of the Office of the City Prosecutor, Iloilo City, issued a Resolution6 finding probable cause to hold petitioner and his therein co-respondents liable for Libel, and recommended the filing of the corresponding Information in court. Petitioner sought reconsideration thereon.
"The latest one is dubbed as "back-door-pay" where high (sic) BIR officials like RD Flores and Revenue District Officer (RDO) Willy Narnola enter the office through the backdoor where hands with envelopes exchange and the persons concerned get their share from illegitimate transactions in the Bureau.
x x x the envelope given to Flores is an open and daily reality by the examiners after they have assessed payments."
A scheme on how money changes hands right inside the BIR Regional Office compound was revealed to the media yesterday by no less than Assistant Regional [D]irecto Mustapha Gandarosa, while a source who requested not to be identified told the INFORMER that "Muss" Gandarosa is blinded by his ulterior motives, the reason why he's coming out with the exposé against his very own office.
According to the INFORMER source[,] Gandarosa was hurt when he was not appointed Regional Director and instead it was Mrs. Sonia Flores who was appointed to the position by the BIR Commissioner Beethoven Rualo.
The source alleged Gandarosa has since then been waiting for an opportunity to put down Regional Director Sonia Flores.
However, this was denied by Gandarosa himself in an interview with the INFORMERS (sic).
According to Gandarosa, the issues thrown against RD Sonia Flores are legitimate and the series of exposes were intended to stop the irregularities that exist in the BIR Revenue Region No. 11.
Yesterday, another anomaly was revealed to a select group of media practitioners by ARD Gandarosa.
The latest one is dubbed as "Back-door-pay" where high BIR (sic) officials like RD Flores and Revenue [D]istrict Officer (RDO) Willy Narnaloa enters (sic) the office through the backdoor where hands with envelopes exchange and the persons concerned get their share from illegitimate transactions in the Bureau.
Gandarosa admitted he had been subjected to such temptations but upon learning that the money given him came from a taxpayer, he refused to accept his supposed share and let go of the officer. According to the Muslim Assistant Regional Director the envelope given to Flores is an open and daily reality by the examiners after they have assessed payments.
Recently a source told the INFORMERS (sic) that from January to May this year, a high[-]ranking official may have pocketed some P50 million from various taxpayers after their tax assessments were adjusted in exchange for payolas that at times reach millions.
The source further said that another official gets an average of P50,000 to P100,000 per week."
The case was docketed as Crim. Case No. 00-52992.
In the meantime, or on 20 February 2001, the Office of the City Prosecutor released a Resolution11 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the 21 August 2000 Resolution which found probable cause against him for Libel. The Office of the Prosecutor declared that it had lost jurisdiction over the case upon the filing of the Information for Libel in the proper court.
The RTC found the Motion to be well-taken. Hence, on 31 October 2001, petitioner was arraigned. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereafter, the case was set for pre-trial.
It must be remembered that said [petitioner] was already arraigned on October 30, 2001, and the pre-trial set thereafter. [Petitioner] did not disclose to the Department of Justice that he was already arraigned, otherwise, had he done so, the Department of Justice, could have dismissed his appeal for being moot and academic.
Nonetheless, this instant Motion [to Amend Information] [was] filed after the said [petitioner] has already been arraigned. Under Section 4, Rule 117, which allows the amendment of complaint or information, the same shall be done before the accused entered his plea, hence, the desirability of amendment, since the Court will not entertain any Motion to Quash, after the arraignment pursuant to Section 1, Rule 117. This is so because with accused' [s] arraignment, the issue has been joined.
Thus, this Court having already acquired jurisdiction, does not lose it despite the resolution of the Secretary of Justice. It has the option to grant or deny the Motion to Dismiss filed by the fiscal, whether before or after the arraignment of the accused (Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 657).
Firstly, the Motion to Amend Information was filed by the City Prosecutor's Office without clearance from the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas. It shall be noted that the Information herein was approved by the Ombudsman-Visayas.
Secondly, this Motion comes after the accused Mustapha Gandarosa had already been arraigned, hence, already moot and academic.
Consequently, petitioner sought relief from the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari, attributing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC for failing to exclude petitioner from the Information for Libel in Criminal Case No. 00-52992.
So too, in assailing the subject order, petitioner faults the public respondent in not making his own determination of the existence of probable cause. In other words, petitioner would like to impress before this Court that since the subject order is silent as to the conduct of such evaluation, then the public respondent did not make his own findings of such probable cause.
A. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT SANCTIONED WITH APROVAL THE RTC ILOILO'S DEPARTURE FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WHEN THE LATTER DENIED THE MOTION TO AMEND THE INFORMATION.
1. THE RTC ILOILO'S ACT OF DENYING THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S MOTION TO AMEND THE INFORMATION ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT IT HAS ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE, AND WITHOUT MAKING AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE ESCAPED THE JUDICIOUS SCRUTINY OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS.
2. THE RTC ILOILO'S ACT OF DENYING THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S MOTION TO AMEND THE INFORMATION IS CONTRARY TO LAW, SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE, AND THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD.
Petitioner is unequivocal that it does not contest the RTC's jurisdiction and its discretion to decide whether he should be excluded from the Information for Libel in Criminal Case No. 00-52992. What petitioner maintains as erroneous is the fact that the RTC neither examined the evidence presented nor reviewed the Resolutions of the DOJ, but instead, merely denied the motion to amend the Information on the basis simply that it had already acquired jurisdiction over the case.
Moreover, petitioner disputes the existence of probable cause against him on the ground that private respondent Evaristo Flores failed to present clear, convincing and credible evidence that he was the source of the alleged libelous publication identifying private respondent's wife, Sonia Flores, as being involved in corrupt practices in the BIR. According to petitioner, private respondent merely relied on newspaper reports. Even then, petitioner argues that he never named Sonia Flores as the official involved in the anomalies, nor did he identify any particular official. He further asserts that malice does not exist where the accused shows good intention or justifiable motive for an alleged defamatory imputation. He repeats his invocation that not only did he not mention the name of Sonia Flores, but he was motivated by his moral, social and legal duty to expose what he perceived were anomalies in the BIR.
Finally, petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals when it held that the RTC's silence as to the evaluation of probable cause should be taken to mean that it was adopting the prosecutor's earlier findings of the existence of probable cause. Petitioner submits that such a silence was not a tacit affirmation of the public prosecutor's earlier findings on the existence of probable cause but rather, it showed a failure on the part of the RTC to exercise its discretion in the manner that was expected of it.
For their part, respondent People of the Philippines thru the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its Comment,39 dated 25 October 2005 and Memorandum40 dated 8 December 2006, praying that the instant Petition be denied for lack of merit.
Whether to approve or disapprove the stand taken by the prosecution is not the exercise of discretion required in cases like this. The trial judge must himself be convinced that there was indeed no sufficient evidence against the accused, and this conclusion can be arrived at only after an assessment of the evidence in the possession of the prosecution. What was imperatively required was the trial judge's own assessment of such evidence, it not being sufficient for the valid and proper exercise of judicial discretion merely to accept the prosecution's word for its supposed insufficiency.
It is imperative on the part of the trial judges to state their assessment and reasons in resolving the motion before them.
Under the herein factual milieu, we answer in the negative.
Contrary to petitioner's contention, a cursory reading of the assailed Order would reveal that the RTC did not deny the Motion on the lone basis that it had already acquired jurisdiction over the criminal action. It denied the Motion on more formidable legal grounds.
Nothing in the records discloses that petitioner's arraignment was with restriction, condition, or reservation. Jurisprudence is clear that with the arraignment of the petitioner, the DOJ Secretary can no longer entertain the appeal or Petition for Review because petitioner had already waived or abandoned the same.55 In the case at bar, following petitioner's arraignment, he is deemed to have waived or abandoned his Petition for Review earlier filed with the DOJ Secretary.
This is where petitioner's contention that the RTC failed to make independent findings based on the evidence before it does not hold water. The allegation that the RTC did not make an independent evaluation of the evidence to determine the existence of probable cause becomes immaterial in light of petitioner's unconditional arraignment. Petitioner's arraignment constitutes a waiver of her right to preliminary investigation or reinvestigation.56 Such waiver is tantamount to a finding of probable cause.57 Hence, the determination of the existence or non-existence of probable cause becomes unnecessary. Following petitioner's arraignment, it was no longer the RTC's duty to make an independent finding of the evidence before it for the determination of probable cause.
We do not herein abandon the ruling that the trial court has the duty to make an independent assessment of the merits of the motion when confronted with a motion to withdraw an information on the ground of lack of probable cause based on a resolution of the secretary of justice.58 Surely, trial courts are called to validly and properly exercise judicial discretion and independence. But where the accused has already been arraigned without reservation, condition or restriction, in line with our ruling in Adasa v. Abalos,59 the unconditional arraignment constitutes a waiver of his right to preliminary investigation or reinvestigation. Consequently, there is a waiver or abandonment of his Petition for Review before the Department of Justice. In like manner, therefore, the trial court has no more need to make an independent assessment of the evidence before it to determine probable cause. Trial ensues.chanrobles virtual law library Conversely, with the arraignment of the accused, the DOJ Secretary can no longer entertain the appeal or Petition for Review because the accused has already waived or abandoned the same.
* Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, then Solicitor General filed the Memorandum for public respondent People of the Philippines before this Court.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Vicente L. Yap with Associate Justices Arsenio J. Magpale and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring; id. at 47-57.
3 Penned by Judge Rene S. Hortillo; records, p. 279.
5 Records, p. 14. The newspaper article was written by Manny Regalado Alcalde.
22 No resolution on the Motion appears on record.
26 Rendered by Undersecretary Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez for the Secretary of Justice; id. at 261-264.
34 324 Phil. 568, 601 (1996).
39 Filed by Solicitor General Alfredo L. Benipayo; id. at 300-316.
40 Filed by then Solicitor General (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura; id. at 396-412.
42 SECTION 4. - Cases not subject to review; exceptions. - No petition may be allowed from a resolution of the Chief State Prosecutor/Regional State Prosecutor/Provincial or City Prosecutor finding probable cause except upon showing of manifest error or grave abuse of discretion. Either complainant/offended party or respondent/accused may file a petition. Notwithstanding the showing of manifest error or grave abuse of discretion no petition shall be entertained where the accused had already been arraigned. Once arraigned, the petition shall be dismissed motu proprio by the Secretary of Justice.
44 G.R. No. L-53373, 30 June 1987, 151 SCRA 462.
48 Roberts, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 34.
49 G.R. No. 112387, 13 October 1994, 237 SCRA 575, 585-586. Also citing Dee v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111153, 21 November 1994, 238 SCRA 254, 265.
50 Roberts, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 34.
55 Adasa v. Abalos, G.R. No. 168617, 19 February 2007.
58 Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, 344 Phil. 207, 217 (1997).
60 Soriano v. Casanova, G.R. No. 163400, 31 March 2006, 486 SCRA 431, 439.
61 Hon. Vasquez v. Hobilla-Alinio, 337 Phil. 513, 519 (1997).
62 Raro v. Sandiganbayan, 390 Phil. 917, 940 (2000), citing QuiÃ±on v. Sandiganbayan, 338 Phil. 290, 309 (1997).
63 Lalican v. Hon. Vergara, 342 Phil. 485, 497 (1997).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.