7) vs de Lima CO 133660

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

*

Documents

7) vs de Lima CO 133660