FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 258929. April 5, 2022.]

BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 93, OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON CITY, and REPRESENTATIVE FERDINAND LEDESMA HERNANDEZ OF THE SECOND DISTRICT OF SOUTH COTABATO, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 5, 2022which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 258929 (Berteni Cataluña Causing, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 93, Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, and Representative Ferdinand Ledesma Hernandez of the Second District of South Cotabato, Respondents). — Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari on Cyber Libel Jurisdiction Issue with Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) with Motion to Raise this Case En Banc with Motion for Consolidation of this Petition to Earlier-filed Petition for Certiorari. 1 The petition seeks to annul the Order 2 dated November 15, 2021 issued by Branch 93, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City that denied the Motion for Reconsideration on Motion to Quash 3 (first motion for reconsideration) filed by petitioner Berteni Cataluña Causing (petitioner).

Likewise challenged is the RTC Order 4 dated January 25, 2022 that denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration on the Second Motion to Quash with Motion to Direct the [Office of the City Prosecutor] OCP of Quezon City to Resolve in Ten (10) Days the Motion for Reconsideration of its Resolution Finding Probable Cause on these Libel Cases 5 (second motion for reconsideration).

The Antecedents

Complainant Ferdinand L. Hernandez (complainant), the duly elected representative of the Second District of South Cotabato, alleged that petitioner made some Facebook posts to destroy his honor and reputation. 6 He learned of the existence of these posts from Atty. Van Lee Roy C. Devesa (Atty. Devesa), 7 who works with him at the House of Representatives, Constitution Hills, Quezon City. 8

In an Affidavit 9 dated December 16, 2020, Atty. Devesa alleged that he recently discovered petitioner's Facebook posts. He viewed the posts using his personal Facebook account with the name "Dicki Devesa" and confirmed that the privacy setting of the posts was "public." Offended on complainant's behalf, he took screenshots of the Facebook posts and reported them to complainant. 10

On December 17, 2020, 11 complainant filed a Complaint-Affidavit 12 against petitioner for violation of Section 4 (c) (4) of Republic Act No. (RA) 10175 13 in relation to Articles 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) (Cyber Libel) with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City (prosecution). CAIHTE

The prosecution found probable cause against petitioner. Consequently, two (2) separate Informations, both dated May 10, 2021, were filed and docketed as Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-21-04099-CR and R-QZN-21-04100-CR. The Information in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-21-04099-CR reads:

That on the 4th day of February 2019 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, through the use of a computer system, a device which, pursuant to a program, is capable of automated processing of data and is connected to a network of other similar devices, with malicious intent of impeaching the honesty and integrity and reputation of one FERDINAND L. HERNANDEZ, a member of the House of Representative, representing the Second District of South Cotabato, and exposing him to public hatred, contempt, scandal, ridicule and disgrace, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and publicly impute on the latter, through posting and sharing a video of Radyo Inquirer News Report on the personal Facebook account under the profile name "Berteni Cataluña Causing" and on a public group Facebook account under the name "Berteni 'Toto' Cataluña Causing" which is of general circulation, with the following defamatory remarks directed to said offended party, to wit:

"PLEASE LIKE & SHARE

xxx xxx xxx

KATARUNGAN

Hindi titigil ang sigaw ng katarungan dahil sa pagnanakaw ng P226 milyon mula sa relief goods para sa Marawi evacuees.

Dahil tinanggal ng Radyo Inquirer itong video sa kanilang website, ini-upload ko ito para patuloy na mapapanood ng lahat ang pagsampa ng kasong PLUNDER o HIGANTENG PAG[N]ANAKAW laban sa Region 12 DSWD Director Bai Zorahaida Taha at South Cotabato Congressman Dinand Hernandez.

Mabuti na lang at nai-record ko."

which libelous statements had for its object to impute a defect, real or imaginary to those who read and watched it of said offended party, that Congressman Ferdinand L. Hernandez, is a plunderer and a thief of the Php225 Million allotted for the Marawi victims, to said offended party's damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 14 (Emphasis supplied)

The Information in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-21-04100-CR reads:

That on the 29th day of April 2019 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, through the use of a computer system, a device which, pursuant to a program, is capable of automated processing of data and is connected to a network of other similar devices, with malicious intent of impeaching the honesty and integrity and reputation of one FERDINAND L. HERNANDEZ, a member of the House of Representative, representing the Second District of South Cotabato, and exposing him to public hatred, contempt, scandal, ridicule and disgrace, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and publicly impute on the latter, through re-posting his February 4, 2019 post on the personal Facebook account under the profile name "Berteni Cataluña Causing" and on a public group Facebook account under the name "Berteni 'Toto' Cataluña Causing" which is of general circulation, with the following defamatory remarks directed to said offended party, to wit:

"KAMPON NG MGA MAGNANAKAW

HUWAG KALIMUTAN ANG NAGNAKAW NG PERA NG BAKWIT MARAWI na sina Dinand Hernandez, Zorahayday Taha, Maria Virginia Hernandez-Villaruel, at ang kanilang mga kasama na kampon ng demonyo.

Ninakaw nila ang P225 million na pera ng mga Maranao na biktima ng giyera sa Marawi sa pamamagitan ng pag-OVERPRICE sa pagkain.

Ang isang pack ng pagkain, ay NIYARI ng Tacurong Fitmart at DSWD Region XII na emergency bidding. Pinalabas nila na P515.00 ang halaga ng isang food pack. Pero kung bilhin mo ang mga items sa nasabing food pack directa sa Tacurong Fitmart, nagkakahalaga lamang ng P270.50 kada isang pack at idagdag na lang dito ang P48 na tuyo o bulad."

which libelous statements had for its object to impute a defect, real or imaginary to those who read and watched it of said offended party, that Congressman Ferdinand L. Hernandez, is part of a gang of thieves who have stolen Php225 Million Pesos allotted for the Marawi victims by overpricing the cost of the relief goods and pocketing the money, to said offended party's damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 15 (Emphasis supplied)

On June 28, 2021, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash Based on Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Offense Charged and that the Criminal Action has been Extinguished 16 (motion to quash); he argued that Cyber Libel prescribes in one year. 17

In its Order 18 dated October 5, 2021, the RTC denied petitioner's motion to quash. DETACa

On November 18, 2021, petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration 19 of the Order 20 dated October 5, 2021 of the RTC via email anchored on the following grounds: (1) the application of the RPC on Section 4 (c) (4) of RA 10175 is not "supplementary" but direct or primary; 21 (2) Cyber Libel prescribes in one year following the doctrine of in dubio pro reo; 22 (3) Act No. 3326 23 does not apply in Cyber Libel cases; 24 and (4) Branch 93, RTC of Quezon City has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. 25

Petitioner maintained that the case should be filed in Koronadal City, South Cotabato where complainant's congressional office is located. He posited that as the congressman of the Second District of South Cotabato, complainant's reputation can never be damaged in Quezon City. 26

The RTC Ruling

In the Order 27 dated November 15, 2021, the RTC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. The RTC held that it has jurisdiction over the two Cyber Libel cases considering that complainant was able to access the alleged defamatory posts in Quezon City and that he resides in Quezon City. 28

Aggrieved, petitioner filed his second motion for reconsideration, 29 but the RTC denied it in the Order 30 dated January 25, 2022.

Hence, the instant petition.

The Issues

For resolution by the Court is the procedural issue of: whether petitioner's failure to observe the doctrine on hierarchy of courts is warranted; and the substantive issue of whether the RTC has jurisdiction over Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-21-04099-CR and R-QZN-21-04100-CR.

Our Ruling

The petition is devoid of merit.

Preliminarily, the petition should be dismissed outright as petitioner availed himself of the wrong remedy and violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The proper recourse from a denial of a motion to quash is to proceed to trial, and if an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. 31 Assuming arguendo that certiorari is available, the petition should have been filed with the Court of Appeals (CA).

The Court disfavors direct resort to it when relief can be obtained in the lower courts. 32 The concurrence of jurisdiction among the RTC, the CA, and the Court to issue writs of certiorari does not give litigants unrestrained freedom of choice. 33 The direct invocation of the Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari should be allowed only when absolutely necessary or when serious and important considerations exist to justify an exception to the policy. 34

Indeed, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule as the Court enumerated the following exceptions in numerous cases: (a) when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time; (b) when the issues involved are of transcendental importance; (c) cases of first impression where no jurisprudence yet exists that will guide the lower courts on the matter; (d) the constitutional issues raised are better decided by the Court; (e) where exigency in certain situations necessitate urgency in the resolution of the cases; (f) the filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ; (g) when petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that could free them from the injurious effects of respondents' acts in violation of their right to freedom of expression; and (h) the petition includes questions that are dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy. 35

However, it is evident that none of the above exceptions are attendant in the present case.

Even discounting the above-discussed doctrine, the Court would still deny the petition.

Branch 93 of the RTC of Quezon

With respect to jurisdiction over cybercrime cases, Section 21 of RA 10175 provides:

Section 21. Jurisdiction. — The Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction over any violation of the provisions of this Act including any violation committed by a Filipino national regardless of the place of commission. Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the elements was committed within the Philippines or committed with the use of any computer system wholly or partly situated in the country, or when by such commission any damage is caused to a natural or juridical person who, at the time the offense was committed, was in the Philippines.

There shall be designated special cybercrime courts manned by specially trained judges to handle cybercrime cases. (Emphasis supplied)

On November 15, 2016, the Court designated Branch 93, RTC of Quezon City, as a special cybercrime court in A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC 36 in relation to A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC. 37

Subsequently, the Court En Banc approved A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC, also known as the Rule on Cybercrime Warrants on July 3, 2018. aDSIHc

Section 2.1 of the Rule on Cybercrime Warrants provides for the venue of criminal actions in relation to RA 10175, to wit:

SECTION 2.1. Venue of Criminal Actions. — The criminal actions for violation of Section 4 (Cybercrime offenses) and/or Section 5 (Other offenses), Chapter II of RA 10175, shall be filed before the designated cybercrime court of the province or city where the offense or any of its elements is committed, or where any part of the computer system used is situated, or where any of the damage caused to a natural or juridical person took place: Provided, that the court where the criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other courts.

All other crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and other special laws, committed by, through, and with the use of ICT, as provided under Section 6, Chapter II of RA 10175, shall be filed before the regular or other specialized regional trial courts, as the case may be. (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied)

It is well settled that for an information to be quashed, the defect must be evident on its face. 38 The Informations filed by the prosecution alleged that the venue of the offense was in Quezon City. The allegations in the informations of the place of the commission of the crime are sufficient to vest the RTC with jurisdiction. In other words, on the face of each of the Information, the RTC has jurisdiction over the offenses as charged.

Further, a motion to quash information is a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the Information. 39 Hence, the Court cannot consider petitioner's contentions which are contrary to the allegations contained on the face of the Informations.

In view of the foregoing, the petition as well as the motions for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and elevation of the case to the Court En Banc should be denied.

Petitioner's motion for the consolidation of the present case with the petition for certiorari he filed docketed as G.R. No. 258524 40 pending before the Court should likewise be denied.

Consolidation of cases involving a common question of law or fact is expressly authorized under Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court. 41 The Court explained in Benguet Corporation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals42 that "rationale for consolidation is to have all cases intimately related acted upon by one Court/Division to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions in cases involving the same facts and common questions of law." 43

Foremost, a litigant is not ipso facto entitled to a consolidation, as it is a procedural device that is subject to the discretion of the Court. 44

Further, as pointed out by petitioner, G.R. No. 258524 and the present case involve different questions of law although the factual milieu is the same. 45 The Court is not a trier of facts; hence, questions of fact, such as petitioner's contentions herein, should be resolved after trial on the merits and not in a petition for certiorari before the Court. 46 Further, the issue in G.R. No. 258524 is whether the prescriptive period for Cyber Libel is one year while the issue in the present petition is the RTC's jurisdiction over Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-21-04099-CR and R-QZN-21-04100-CR. 47 In the Court's view, the consolidation of the two cases will not expedite the resolution of the legal issues involved but will only muddy the waters, so to speak, in G.R. No. 258524.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Orders dated November 15, 2021 and January 25, 2022 of Branch 93, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, are AFFIRMED.

Petitioner Berteni Cataluña Causing's motions for the issuance of temporary restraining order, consolidation, and elevation of the case to the Court En Banc are denied.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-33.

2.Id. at 35-37. Penned by Presiding Judge Arthur O. Malabaguio.

3.Id. at 39-61.

4.Id. at 92-95.

5.Id. at 97-108.

6.Id. at 120-122.

7.Id. at 125.

8.Id. at 133. Congressman Ferdinand L. Hernandez and Atty. Van Lee Roy C. Devesa have the same office address.

9.Id. at 133-135.

10.Id. at 134.

11.Id. at 109.

12.Id. at 120-129.

13. An Act Defining Cybercrime, Providing for the Investigation, Suppression and the Imposition of Penalties Therefore, and for Other Purposes [Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012], Republic Act No. 10175 (2012).

14.Rollo, pp. 114-115.

15.Id. at 117-118.

16.Id. at 73-91.

17.Id. at 75.

18.Id. at 68-71.

19.Id. at 39-61.

20.Id. at 68-71.

21.Id. at 44.

22.Id. at 46.

23. An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin to Run, Act No. 3326 (1926).

24.Rollo, p. 47.

25.Id. at 53.

26.Id. at 60.

27.Id. at 35-37.

28.Id. at 37.

29.Id. at 97-108.

30.Id. at 92-95.

31.Tano v. Hon. Gov. Socrates, 343 Phil. 670, 697-698 (1997).

32.Dy v. Bibat-Palamos, 717 Phil. 776 (2013).

33.People v. Cuaresma, 254 Phil. 418, 427 (1989).

34.Vergara, Sr. v. Judge Suelto, 240 Phil. 719, 732 (1987).

35.Bureau of Customs v. Hon. Devanadera, 769 Phil. 231, 261-262 (2015), citing The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, 751 Phil. 301 (2015).

36. Supreme Court, Re: Designating Certain Branches of the Regional Trial Courts to Try and Decide Cybercrime Cases under Republic Act No. 10175, SC Administrative Matter No. 03-03-03-SC [A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC] (Nov. 15, 2016). The Court designated Special Commercial Courts as Special Cybercrime Courts.

37. Supreme Court, Re: Resolution Designating Certain Branches of RTCs to Try and Decide Cases Formerly Cognizable by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SC Administrative Matter No. 00-11-03-SC [A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC] (Nov. 21, 2000). The Court designated the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 93 as a Special Commercial Court.

38.Santos v. People, 585 Phil. 337, 361 (2008).

39.Milo v. Judge Salanga, 236 Phil. 121, 129 (1987).

40. See rollo, p. 5.

41. Section 1, Rule 31:

SECTION 1. Consolidation. — When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

42. 247-A Phil. 356 (1988).

43.Id. at 363.

44. Section 5, Rule 9 of The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court provides, "Consolidation of cases. — The Court may order the consolidation of cases involving common questions of law or of act. The Chief Justice shall assign the consolidated cases to the Member-in-Charge to whom the case having the lower or lowest docket number has been raffled, subject to equalization of case load by raffle x x x.

The Judicial Records Office shall see to it that (a) the rollos of the consolidated cases are joined together to prevent the loss, misplacement or detachment of any of them; and (b) the cover of each rollo indicates the G.R. or UDK number of the case with which the former is consolidated."

45.Rollo, pp. 4-5.

46.Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 378 Phil. 984, 990 (1999).

47.Rollo, pp. 4-5.