ISAGANI YAMBOT AND LETTY JIMENEZ-MAGSANOC, PETITIONERS, VS. RAYMUNDO A. ARMOVIT AND HON. FRANCISCO R. RANCHES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 21 OF THE REGIONA…

Yambot versus Armovit

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Isagani Yambot, the publisher, and Letty Jimenez-Magsanoc, the editor-in-chief, of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, against Raymundo Armovit and the presiding judge of Branch 21 of the Regional Trial Court of Ilocos Sur. The petitioners were charged with libel before the trial court on account of news reports published in May 1996, and they ask the Supreme Court to compel the withdrawal of the criminal informations after the Regional State Prosecutor reversed the finding of probable cause made by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between the prosecutor's domain and the judge's: once an information is filed in court, who decides whether it should be withdrawn, and how much deference is owed to the prosecution's own reversal.

Procedural History

Armovit filed a complaint-affidavit for libel with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Ilocos Sur against the petitioners and two correspondents. The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor issued a resolution finding probable cause, and two criminal informations for libel were filed with the Regional Trial Court of Ilocos Sur, Branch 21. The petitioners sought review by the Regional State Prosecutor, who reversed the findings of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, prompting that office to move for the withdrawal of the informations. The trial court denied the motion, finding probable cause for the filing of the charges, and later denied reconsideration. The petitioners then went to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari, which denied the reliefs prayed for in its decision of September 16, 2005 and its resolution of May 8, 2006 denying reconsideration. The petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

In its May 2 and May 3, 1996 issues, the Philippine Daily Inquirer published news reports which allegedly imputed to Armovit, a lawyer, the harboring or concealment of a convicted murderer, his client Rolito Go. On May 15, 1996, Armovit filed with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Ilocos Sur a complaint-affidavit for libel against Yambot as publisher, Jimenez-Magsanoc as editor-in-chief, and two correspondents of the broadsheet.

On October 31, 1996, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor issued a resolution finding probable cause to indict the petitioners and the reporters for libel, and two criminal informations for libel were filed with the Regional Trial Court of Ilocos Sur, Branch 21. The petitioners sought review by the Regional State Prosecutor, who eventually reversed the findings of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. On February 12, 1997, that office moved to withdraw the informations.

On July 9, 1997, the trial court denied the motion on the ground that it found probable cause for the filing of the charges, and it later denied reconsideration. The Court of Appeals denied the petitioners' petition for certiorari, and the matter reached the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the informations, thereby depriving the petitioners of their right to preliminary investigation.
• Whether or not the trial court gravely abused its discretion in ruling that there was probable cause to charge the petitioners with libel.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory text; it rests on the doctrine of Crespo versus Mogul, which the Court states in these words:

Once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case as to its dismissal, or the conviction or acquittal of the accused, rests on the sound discretion of the said court, as it is the best and sole judge of what to do with the case before it.

This rule governs the motion to withdraw and locates the discretion in the trial court, not in the prosecutor.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no grave abuse of discretion. Once the information is filed, the disposition of the case rests on the sound discretion of the court, which is the best and sole judge of what to do with the case before it. The resolution of the prosecutorial arm is persuasive but not binding on the court. The court may grant or deny a motion to withdraw the information based on its own assessment of the records of the preliminary investigation, in the faithful exercise of judicial discretion and prerogative, and not out of subservience to the prosecutor. The trial judge must state his or her assessment and reasons, but need not make a lengthy exposition of the factual and legal foundation relied upon. Here, the trial court made its own assessment of the records and complied with its duty to determine by itself the merits of the motion, so its ruling cannot be stigmatized as tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

On the second issue, the Court held that it cannot, in a petition for review on certiorari, review the evidence adduced before the prosecutor on the absence or presence of probable cause. Respect must be accorded to the trial court's disposition of the motion absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners' arguments that the news reports are not defamatory, are privileged in character, and are constitutionally protected are all matters of defense which can properly be ventilated during the trial.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case as to its dismissal, or the conviction or acquittal of the accused, rests on the sound discretion of the court, which is the best and sole judge of what to do with the case before it. Second, the prosecutor's resolution is persuasive but not binding; the court may grant or deny a motion to withdraw the information based on its own assessment of the records of the preliminary investigation, and not out of subservience to the prosecutor. Third, the trial judge must state his or her assessment and reasons, but need not make a lengthy exposition of the factual and legal foundation. Fourth, a petition for review on certiorari cannot be used to review the evidence on probable cause adduced before the prosecutor, and defenses such as lack of defamatory meaning, privilege, and constitutional protection are matters for trial.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining the trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw the informations was affirmed.

Remember This

Memorize the line: once the information is filed, the court, not the prosecutor, is the best and sole judge of what to do with the case before it. Examiners use this case to test the Crespo versus Mogul doctrine on motions to withdraw informations and the limits of a petition for review on certiorari on the question of probable cause.