l\epub lie of tbt llbilippints

~upreme ~ourt
;ilflantla

FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a

Resolution dated April 5, 2022 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 258929 (Berteni Catalufia 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 Cyberlibel 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
1
Earlier-filed Petition for Certiorari. The petition seeks to annul the
Order2 dated November 15, 2021 issued by Branch 93, Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City that denied the Motion for
3
Reconsideration on Motion to Quash (first motion for
reconsideration) filed by petitioner Berteni Catalufia Causing
(petitioner).
4
Likewise challenged is the RTC Order 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).

- over - ten (10) pages ...

83-A

1
Rollo, pp. 3-33.
2 Id. at 35-37. Penned by Presiding Judge Arthur 0. Malabaguio.
3
Id. at 39-61.
4
Id. at 92-95.
5
Id. at 97-108.
RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 258929
April 5, 2022

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
8
House of Representatives, Constitution Hills, Quezon City.

In an Affidavit9 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
10
the Facebook posts and reported them to complainant.

On December 17, 2020, 11 complainant filed a Complaint-

Affidavit12 against petitioner for violation of Section 4(c)(4) of
Republic Act No. (RA) 10175 13 in relation to Article 353 and 355 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) (Cyber Libel) with the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Quezon City (prosecution).

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

- over -
83-A

6
Id. at 120-122.
7
ld.at125.
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
ld. at l 20-1 29.
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),
Republ ic Act No. 10175 (2012).
RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 258929
April 5, 2022

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 Catalufia
Causing" and on a public group Facebook account under the name
"Berteni 'Toto' Catalufia Causing" which is of general circulation,
with the following defamatory remarks directed to said offended
party, to wit:

"PLEASE LIKE & SHARE

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

- over -
83-A

14
Rollo, pp. 114-115.
RESOLUTION 4 G.R. No. 258929
April 5, 2022

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 Catalufia Causing" and on a public group
Facebook account under the name "Berteni 'Toto' Catalufia
Causing" which is of general circulation, with the following
defamatory remarks directed to said offended party, to wit:

"KAMPON NG MGA MAGNAN AKAW

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 P 515 .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
17
Cyber Libel prescribes in one year.

- over -
83-A

15
Id. at 117-118.
16
Id. at 73-91.
17
Id. at 75.
RESOLUTION 5 G.R. No. 258929
April 5, 2022

In its Order 18 dated October 5, 2021, the RTC denied

petitioner's motion to quash.

On November 18, 2021, petitioner filed his motion for

reconsideration 19 of the Order20 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 primary21 ; (2) Cyber Libel prescribes in one year following
the doctrine of in dubio pro reo; 22 (3) Act No. 332623 does not apply
in Cyber Libel cases; 24 and (4) Branch 93, RTC of Quezon City has
25
no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.

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
26
Quezon City.

The RTC Ruling

In the Order27 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
28
Quezon City and that he resides in Quezon City.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed his second motion for

30
reconsideration,29 but the R TC denied it in the Order dated January
25, 2022.

Hence, the instant petition.

- over -
83-A

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
1d. 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.
RESOLUTION 6 G.R. No. 258929
April 5, 2022

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
31
rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law.
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
34
important considerations exist to justify an exception to the policy.

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'

- over -
83-A

31
Tana 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).
RESOLUTION 7 G.R. No. 258929
April 5, 2022

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,
35
or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy.

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

City has jurisdiction over Criminal
Case Nos. R-QZN-21-04099-CR
and R-QZN-21-04100-CR

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-
37
SC36 in relation to A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC.

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 .
- over -
83-A

35 Bureau of Customs v. Hon. Devanadera, 769 Phil. 231, 261 -262 (2015), citing The Diocese of
Bacolod v. COMELEC, 751 Phil. 30 I (20 I 5).
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, 20 I 6). 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.
RESOLUTION 8 G.R. No. 258929
April 5, 2022

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 Info:pnations 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 R TC with jurisdiction. In other
words, on the face of each of the Information, the R TC has
jurisdiction over the offenses as charged.

Further, a motion to quash information is a hypothetical

39
admission of the facts alleged in the Information. Hence, the Court
cannot consider petitioner's contentions whicq are contrary to the
allegations contained on the face of the Informations.

In view of the foregoing, the petition as \\fell 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

40
with the petition for certiorari he filed docketed as G.R. No. 258524
pending before the Court should likewise be denied.

- over -
83-A

38
Santos v. People, 585 Phil. 337,361 (2008).
39
Milo v. Judge Salanga, 236 Phil. 121, 129 ( 1987).
40
See rollo, p. 5.
RESOLUTION 9 G.R. No. 258929
April 5, 2022

Consolidation of cases involving a common question of law or

fact is expressly authorized under Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of
Comi. 41 The Comi explained in Benguet Corporation, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals42 that "rationale for consolidation i$ 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 oflaw."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
44
Comi.

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-
47
QZN-21 -04099-CR and R-QZN-21-04100-CR. 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 Catalufia Causing's motions for the issuance

of temporary restraining order, consolidation, and elevation of the
case to the Court En Banc are denied.
- over -
83-A

41
Section l , Rule 31:
SECTION I. Consolidation. - When actions involving a comm?n 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 base with which the former is
consolidated."
45
Rollo, pp. 4-5.
46
Reyes v. Court ofAppeals, 378 Phil. 984, 990 (I 999).
47
Rollo, pp. 4-5.
RESOLUTION 10 G.R. No. 258929
April 5, 2022

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

Divisi Clerk of Court

~

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO

Deputy Division Clerk of Court
83-A
JUL 2 8 7J)22_
CAUSING SABARRE PELAGIO The Hon. Presiding Judge
Counsel for Petitioner Regional Trial Court, Branch 93
Unit A2, Building 2, Rey-D Buildings 1100 Quezon City
San Rafael Street cor. Boni Avenue (Crim. Case Nos. R-QZN-21-04099 to 100)
1550 Mandaluyong City
The Solicitor General
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

OF QUEZON CITY
Justice Cecilia Mufioz Palma Hall
Department of Justice Building, Quezon City Hall
Katipunan A venue, 1100 Quezon City

Atty. Marcial Gerald Suarez III

Counsel for Private Respondent
Capitol Hills Drive, O ld Balara
1119 Quezon City

Public Information Office (x)

Library Services (x)
Supreme Court
(For uploading pursuant to A.M.
No. 12-7- 1-SC)

Philippine Judicial Academy (x)

Supreme Court

Judgment Division (x)

Supreme Court

UR