G.R. No. 172677.September 12, 2008.

*
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 Regional Trial Court of
Vigan, Ilocos Sur, respondents.
Criminal Procedure; Dismissal of Criminal Cases; 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.Crespo v. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462 (1987), instructs in a
very clear manner that 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. While the resolution of the prosecutorial arm is persuasive, it is not binding on the court.
It may therefore grant or deny at its option a motion to dismiss or to withdraw the
information based on its own assessment of the records of the preliminary investigation
submitted to it, in the faithful exercise of judicial discretion and prerogative, and not out of
subservience to the prosecutor. While it is imperative on the part of a trial judge to state
his/her assessment and reasons in resolving the motion before him/her, he/she need not
state with specificity or make a lengthy exposition of the factual and legal foundation relied
upon to arrive at the decision.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Ortega, Del Castillo, Bacorro, Odulio, Calma & Carbonell for petitioners.
The Law Firm of Raymundo A. Armovit for respondent.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
178

178

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yambot vs. Armovit

NACHURA,J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorariassailing the September 16,
2005 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 54397, and the May
8, 2006 Resolution2 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.
We begin by a brief statement of the relevant facts and proceedings.

On account of the publication in the May 2 and 3, 1996 issues of the Philippine
Daily Inquirer of news reports which allegedly imputed to private respondent
Armovit the harboring or concealment of a convicted murderer (his client, Rolito
Go), Armovit filed on May 15, 1996 with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
(OPP) of Ilocos Sur a complaint-affidavit for libel against petitioners Yambot, the
publisher, and Jimenez-Magsanoc, the editor-in-chief, and two other correspondents,
Teddy Molina and Juliet Pascual, of the said broadsheet. Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor Nonatus Rojas then issued, on October 31, 1996, a Resolution finding
probable cause to indict the petitioners and the reporters for libel. Two criminal
informations for libel were consequently filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Ilocos Sur, Branch 21.3
In the meantime, petitioners sought the review of the OPPs resolution by the
Regional State Prosecutor (RSP). Eventually, RSP Constante Caridad reversed the
findings of the OPP, prompting the latter to file a motion for the withdrawal of the
aforesaid informations on February 12, 1997.4
The trial court, however, on July 9, 1997 denied the said motion on the ground
that it found probable cause for the
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios, with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and
Vicente S.E. Veloso, concurring; Rollo, pp. 39-46.
2 Id., at pp. 48-50.
3 Id., at pp. 17-18.
4 Id., at p. 19.
179

VOL. 565, SEPTEMBER 12, 2008

Yambot vs. Armovit

179

filing of the charges. The trial court later denied petitioners motion for
reconsideration.5
Frustrated with the trial courts dispositions, petitioners sought the issuance of
a certiorari writ by the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 54397. But the CA, in the
assailed decision and resolution, denied the reliefs prayed for.6
Thus, petitioners elevated the matter for review by this Court on the following
grounds:

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED

TO RULE THAT RESPONDENT TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
IN DENYING THE PROVINCIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTORS MOTION TO WITHDRAW
THE TWO (2) INFORMATIONS FOR LIBEL AGAINST PETITIONERS, THUS

EFFECTIVELY DEPRIVING THE PETITIONERS OF THEIR RIGHT TO PRELIMINARY

INVESTIGATION.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED
TO RULE THAT THE RESPONDENT TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN RULING THAT THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO CHARGE
PETITIONERS WITH LIBEL.
7

Considering that the determination of probable cause to indict an accused is a

function of the prosecutor, not of the judge, the petitioners argue in the main that
the trial court should have deferred to the RSPs finding that no prima facie case for
libel exists. They further aver that the questioned news reports are not defamatory
for they do not impute to private respondent, directly or impliedly, the commission of
a crime. Further, they claim that the reports are privileged in character and are
constitutionally protected; hence, malice cannot be presumed.8
_______________
5 Id., at pp. 19-20.
6 Supra notes 1 and 2.
7 Id., at p. 21.
8 Id., at pp. 121-137.

180

180

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yambot vs. Armovit

We find no merit in petitioners contentions; thus, we deny the petition.

Crespo v. Mogul9 instructs in a very clear manner that 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. While the
resolution of the prosecutorial arm is persuasive, it is not binding on the court. 10 It
may therefore grant or deny at its option a motion to dismiss or to withdraw the
information11 based on its own assessment of the records of the preliminary
investigation submitted to it, in the faithful exercise of judicial discretion and
prerogative, and not out of subservience to the prosecutor. 12 While it is imperative on
the part of a trial judge to state his/her assessment and reasons in resolving the
motion before him/her,13 he/she need not state with specificity or make a lengthy
exposition of the factual and legal foundation relied upon to arrive at the decision. 14

Applying the foregoing doctrines to the case at bar, the Court finds no error on
the part of the appellate court in sustaining the orders of the trial court. The RTC of
Ilocos Sur indeed has the prerogative to grant or deny the motion to withdraw the
informations. Further, as clearly shown by the July 9, 1997 Order
_______________
9 No. L-53373, June 30, 1987, 151 SCRA 462, 471.
10 Torres, Jr. v. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 164268, June 28, 2005, 461 SCRA 599, 612.
11 Santos v. Orda, Jr., 481 Phil. 93, 105-106; 437 SCRA 504, 515 (2004).
12 Fuentes v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164664, July 20, 2006, 495 SCRA 784, 800-801; Pilapil v. Hon.
Garchitorena, 359 Phil. 674, 687-688; 299 SCRA 343, 358 (1998).
13 Gandarosa v. Flores, G.R. No. 167910, July 17, 2007, 527 SCRA 776, 793.
14 First Womens Credit Corporation v. Baybay, G.R. No. 166888, January 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 637,
647.
181

VOL. 565, SEPTEMBER 12, 2008

Yambot vs. Armovit

181

[t]hat these defamatory imputations are false is established by all the evidence in the
record of preliminary investigation; the accused submitted no evidence to prove the truth of
the imputations. x x x
15

the trial court made its own assessment of the records submitted to it and complied
with its bounden duty to determine by itself the merits of the motion. Therefore, its
ruling cannot be stigmatized and tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
It is well to note at this point that the Court, in this petition for review
on certiorari, cannot review the evidence adduced by the parties before the
prosecutor on the issue of the absence or presence of probable cause. 16 Respect must
be accorded to the trial courts disposition of the motion to withdraw absent any
showing of grave abuse of discretion.
The other arguments adduced by the petitionersthat the news reports are not
defamatory, privileged in character and constitutionally protectedare all matters
of defense which can be properly ventilated during the trial.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario and Reyes,
JJ., concur.
Petition denied.

Note.Precipitate dismissal of criminal cases is tantamount to denying the

State due process. (People vs. Leviste, 255 SCRA 238 [1996])
o0o
_______________
15 Rollo, p. 85.
16G Adasa v. Abalos, .R. No. 168617, February 19, 2007, 516 SCRA 261, 281.

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.