RUFINA L. CALIWAN, PETITIONER, VS. MARIO OCAMPO, OFELIA OCAMPO AND RHODORA PASILONA, RESPONDENTS.

Caliwan versus Ocampo

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Rufina Caliwan against Mario Ocampo, Ofelia Ocampo, and Rhodora Pasilona. The dispute began as a cluster of cross-complaints between neighbors in Pasay City — the petitioner charging the respondents with attempted murder, multiple serious physical injuries, slander by deed, grave threats, and grave oral defamation, and the respondents filing their own counter-charges of grave threats, oral defamation, alarms and scandals, and physical injuries. The case matters because it fixes a hard procedural rule: when a criminal case falls under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, an order denying a motion to withdraw the information is merely interlocutory, and a petition for certiorari against it is a prohibited pleading that the courts must refuse. It also reminds us that once an information is filed in court, the withdrawal or dismissal of the case lies in the sound discretion of the court, not of the prosecutor.

Procedural History

The charges and counter-charges were consolidated and jointly investigated by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City. The prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint for lack of evidence, and recommended instead that the petitioner be charged with light threats and slight physical injuries. Two separate informations were accordingly filed against her before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City.

The petitioner appealed to the Department of Justice, which found probable cause for light threats against Mario Ocampo and for grave oral defamation and slight physical injuries against Ofelia Ocampo and Rhodora Pasilona, ordered the corresponding informations filed, and directed the withdrawal of the informations against the petitioner. A motion for withdrawal of information was then filed, but the Metropolitan Trial Court denied it in its order dated June 6, 2006, finding probable cause to proceed and noting that the motion failed to comply with the three-day notice rule.

The petitioner went to the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City on a petition for certiorari. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition, reversed the Metropolitan Trial Court, and dismissed the two cases against the petitioner. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the Regional Trial Court and reinstated the June 6, 2006 order denying the withdrawal, while directing the trial court to proceed with dispatch. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

On September 4, 2004, at about three o'clock in the afternoon, Rufina Caliwan was singing inside her house and hosting a party for her birthday. Stones were thrown on the roof of her house from the direction of the house of her neighbor, Mario Ocampo. She reported the matter to the barangay, which called the parties to conciliation, but the Ocampos refused to appear. That evening, Rhodora Pasilona and Ofelia Ocampo allegedly shouted defamatory words at her in the presence of her guests. Days later, she claimed, Mario Ocampo would intercept her whenever she passed in front of their house, with threatening looks and his hand in the position of drawing his service firearm.

The Ocampos gave a different account. They said that at about ten thirty in the morning they noticed loud voices, laughing, and singing from the petitioner's birthday celebration, but did not react in order to avoid misunderstanding. At about ten thirty in the evening, they claimed, the petitioner went out of her house with her visitors, apparently drunk, and shouted threats and insults at them. They reported the matter to the barangay, and a conciliation proceeding was set for October 14, 2004. After that proceeding, they alleged, the petitioner suddenly assaulted Rhodora Pasilona while uttering insulting words, and Pasilona sought medical attention at the Pasay City General Hospital.

The prosecutor's investigation produced the informations for light threats and slight physical injuries against the petitioner, and the Department of Justice later directed the filing of charges against the respondents and the withdrawal of the informations against the petitioner. The Metropolitan Trial Court refused to withdraw them, and the case travelled up to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Metropolitan Trial Court erred in denying the public prosecutor's motion to withdraw the information on the ground that the motion was defective, and without consideration of the rights of the accused.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Regional Trial Court and upholding the Metropolitan Trial Court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 19 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure provides:

SEC. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions. – The following pleadings, motions, or petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule: x x x x (g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court;

This is the decisive provision, because the charges of light threats and slight physical injuries fall under the summary procedure, and the order denying the withdrawal of the information is interlocutory.

Section 21 of the same Rules provides:

SEC. 21. Appeal. – The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate Regional Trial Court which shall decide the same in accordance with Section 22 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The decision of the Regional Trial Court in civil cases governed by this Rule, including forcible entry and unlawful detainer, shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom. Section 10 of Rule 70 shall be deemed repealed.

The Court cites this to show that the petitioner's proper remedy was to raise her defenses at trial and then appeal an adverse judgment, not to file a prohibited petition for certiorari.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that it need not pass upon the merits of the denial, because to entertain the question would in effect give due course to the prohibited petition for certiorari. It nevertheless stated the governing rule: although the institution of a criminal action depends on the sound discretion of the fiscal, once the case is filed in court it can no longer be withdrawn or dismissed without the court's approval. The Secretary of Justice may alter or modify the resolution of his subordinate and direct the withdrawal of the case, but he cannot impose his will on the court. Once a complaint or information is filed, any disposition of the case — dismissal, conviction, or acquittal — rests on the sound discretion of the court, and a motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal is addressed to that discretion, which the court may grant or deny.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err. The charges against the petitioner are light threats and slight physical injuries, to which the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure apply. The June 6, 2006 order denying the motion for withdrawal of information is interlocutory: like an order denying a motion to dismiss, it does not finally dispose of the case nor determine the rights and liabilities of the parties as regards each other. Because the order is interlocutory and the case falls under the summary procedure, the Regional Trial Court erred in taking cognizance of the petition for certiorari despite the clear prohibition in Section 19. The Court stressed that when the law is clear, there is no room for interpretation, and that the Rules on Summary Procedure were promulgated to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases.

Doctrine

• Under Section 19 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, a petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court is a prohibited pleading.
• An order denying a motion for withdrawal of information is interlocutory, because it does not finally dispose of the case and leaves something to be done before the case is decided on the merits.
• The proper remedy of an accused in a summary procedure case is to ventilate her defenses at trial and, if the judgment is adverse, to appeal under Section 21 of the same Rules.
• Once an information is filed in court, the dismissal or withdrawal of the case rests on the sound discretion of the court; the fiscal, and even the Secretary of Justice, cannot impose their opinion on the trial court.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the Court of Appeals decision reinstating the Metropolitan Trial Court order denying the motion for withdrawal of information, as well as its resolution denying reconsideration, were affirmed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an order denying a motion to withdraw an information is interlocutory, and in summary procedure cases a petition for certiorari against an interlocutory order is a prohibited pleading. Examiners use this case to test the interplay between the prosecutor's direction and control of the prosecution and the court's exclusive discretion over a case once it is filed, and to test the prohibited pleadings under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.