G.R. No. 175887 - HEIRS OF THE LATE NESTOR TRIA, VS. ATTY. EPIFANIA OBIAS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the case against respondent was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. [28] Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration [29] which was denied by the OP in its Order [30] dated June 10, 2004. Before the CA, petitioners filed a petition for mandamus/certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure , as amended. On August 14, 2006, the CA rendered the assailed Decision denying the petition. On the issue of the alleged grave abuse committed by the OP in modifying the findings of the DOJ instead of ordering the Secretary of Justice to reopen/review the case in accordance with Memorandum Circular No. 58, the CA held that it was not mandatory for the OP to do so. As for the evaluation of factual matters and credence to be accorded to the testimonies of respondent and her witnesses, the CA declared that these are not proper grounds in a petition for certiorari which is confined only to the correction of errors of jurisdiction. Neither will mandamus lie to compel the performance of a discretionary duty in view of the failure of petitioners to show a clear and certain right to justify the grant of relief. [31] Their motion for reconsideration having been denied by the CA, petitioners are now before us contending that the CA manifestly overlooked relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. They maintain that the CA decision is contrary to law and established jurisprudence. Petitioners argue that since the preliminary investigation and review of the resolution finding probable cause have already been terminated years before respondent's appeal to the OP -- more so with the earlier denial of the said appeal for failing to raise any new issue not raised before the DOJ -- the alleged new affidavits should have been referred to the DOJ for reinvestigation. As to the affidavits of Calayag and Jennis Nidea, said witnesses have not been confronted by the petitioners in violation of the latter's right to due process. Thus, the CA decision affirmed the OP's dismissal of the case against respondent at the level of the DOJ without referral to the said office and without consideration of the pendency of the case at RTC of Quezon City, Branch 76. Lacking such authority on appeal to appreciate newly submitted affidavits of Calayag and Nidea, Presidential Assistant Manuel C. Domingo arrogated unto himself the judicial task of analyzing the said documents without confrontation of the witnesses by the other party. Further, the CA overlooked the fact that such affidavits submitted by respondent as newly discovered evidence was merely a ploy in order for her appeal to qualify as raising new and material issues which were supposedly not raised before the DOJ. [32] Petitioners further argue that the CA should not have affirmed the OP's dismissal of the murder charge against the respondent pursuant to Crespo v. Mogul [33] that once an information has been filed in court, any disposition of the case as to its d