DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE: On December 11, 2003, the RTC issued an Order[13] admitting Exhibits A, B, W and X, but denied admission

On December 11, 2003, the RTC issued an Order[13] admitting Exhibits A, B, W and X, but denied admission of all the other
exhibits on the grounds stated therein.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the RTC in an Order[14] dated January 27,
SECOND DIVISION 2004.

In the meantime, on December 18, 2003, respondent filed an Omnibus Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to
[G.R. No. 167526. July 26, 2010.] Evidence[15] and to admit the attached Demurrer to Evidence.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. DANTE TAN, respondent. On January 29, 2004, the RTC issued another Order[16] granting respondents Motion for Leave to File the Demurrer and
forthwith admitted respondents attached Demurrer. The RTC also ordered petitioner to file an opposition.
DECISION
On February 18, 2004, petitioner filed its Opposition[17] to the Demurrer to Evidence. Respondent then filed a Reply.[18]
PERALTA, J.:
On March 16, 2004, the RTC issued an Order[19] granting respondents Demurrer to Evidence, the dispositive portion of
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari,[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the June which reads:
14, 2004 Resolution[2] and February 24, 2005 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 83433.
WHEREFORE, finding the Demurrer to Evidence filed by accused Dante Tan to be meritorious, the same is GRANTED.
The facts of the case are as follows:
SO ORDERED.[20]
On December 21, 2000, two Informations for violation of Rule 36 (a)-1,[4] in relation to Sections 32 (a)-1[5] and 56[6] of the
Revised Securities Act, were filed by petitioner People of the Philippinesagainst respondent Dante Tan in the Regional Trial On April 12, 2004,[21] petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari[22] before the CA assailing the December 11, 2003, January
Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 153. They were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 119831 and 119832. 27, 2004, and March 16, 2004 Orders of the RTC.
The Information[7] in Criminal Case No. 119831 reads: On June 14, 2004, the CA issued a Resolution denying the petition, the dispositive portion of which reads:
That on December 10, 1998, or thereabout, in the City of Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of WHEREFORE, in the context of all the foregoing considerations, it would be futile to take further action on the herein
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being the beneficial owner of 84,030,000 Best World Resources petition, which is therefore DISMISSED outright for evident want of merit.
Corporation shares, a registered security sold pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of the Revised Securities Act, which beneficial
ownership constitutes 18.6% of the outstanding shares of the company, way above the 10% required by law to be reported, SO ORDERED.[23]
and covered by Certificate Nos. DT-UK 55485704 and DT-UR 55485776, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
criminally fail to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission and with the Philippine Stock Exchange a sworn In denying the petition, the CA ruled that the dismissal of a criminal action by the grant of a Demurrer to Evidence is one on
statement of the amount of all BWRC shares of which he is the beneficial owner, within ten (10) days after he became such the merits and operates as an acquittal, for which reason, the prosecution cannot appeal therefrom as it would place the
beneficial owner, in violation of the Revised Securities Act and/or the rules and regulations prescribed and pursuant thereto. accused in double jeopardy.[24]

CONTRARY TO LAW.[8] Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was, however, denied by the CA in a Resolution dated
February 24, 2005.
The Information[9] in Criminal Case No. 119832 reads:
Hence, herein petition, with petitioner raising the lone assignment of error, to wit:
That on June 18, 1999, or thereabout, in the City of Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused being the beneficial owner of 75,000,000 Best World Resources Corporation RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN PRECLUDING THE PEOPLE FROM PROSECUTING ITS
shares, a registered security which has been sold pursuant to Sections 4 and 8 of the Revised Securities Act, which beneficial CASES AGAINST DANTE TAN.[25]
ownership constitutes 18.6% of the outstanding shares of the company, way above the 10% required by law to be reported, The petition has no merit.
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally fail to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission and with
the Philippine Stock Exchange a sworn statement of the amount of all BWRC shares of which he is the beneficial owner, Notwithstanding the RTCs grant of respondents Demurrer to Evidence, petitioner contends that the CA erred in applying the
within ten (10) days after he became such beneficial owner, in violation of the Revised Securities Act and/or the rules and rules on double jeopardy. Specifically, petitioner argues that double jeopardy does not apply in cases decided by the trial
regulations prescribed pursuant thereto. court without jurisdiction and in violations of petitioners right to due process. [26]
CONTRARY TO LAW.[10] In People v. Sandiganbayan,[27] this Court explained the general rule that the grant of a demurrer to evidence operates as an
acquittal and is, thus, final and unappealable, to wit:
After arraignment, respondent pleaded not guilty[11] to both charges and the trial ensued.
The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such as the one at bar, is "filed after the prosecution had rested its case," and
On November 24, 2003, petitioner made its formal offer of evidence, [12] consisting of Exhibits A to E with sub-exhibits,
when the same is granted, it calls "for an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and its sufficiency to
Exhibits K-1, K-10 and K-11, Q, R, S, T and W with sub-exhibits, and Exhibit X.
warrant conviction beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the case on the merits, tantamount to an acquittal of
the accused." Such dismissal of a criminal case by the grant of demurrer to evidence may not be appealed, for to do so would
be to place the accused in double jeopardy. The verdict being one of acquittal, the case ends there.[28]
The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction when it practically held that the prosecution failed to establish the culpability of the
The elements of double jeopardy are (1) the complaint or information was sufficient in form and substance to sustain a accused in a proceeding which does not even require the prosecution to do so. It acted with grave abuse of discretion,
conviction; (2) the court had jurisdiction; (3) the accused had been arraigned and had pleaded; and (4) the accused was tantamount to lack of jurisdiction, when it preemptively dismissed the cases and, as a consequence thereof, deprived the
convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed without his express consent. [29] prosecution of its right to prosecute and prove its case, thereby violating its fundamental right to due process." With this
violation, its Orders, dated 28 October 1976 and 20 December 1976, are therefore null and void. Likewise, for being null
These elements are present here: (1) the Informations filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 119831 and 119832 against respondent and void, said orders cannot constitute a proper basis for a claim of double jeopardy. [38]
were sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the RTC had jurisdiction over Criminal Cases
Nos. 119831 and 119832; (3) respondent was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty; and (4) the RTC dismissed Criminal In Saldana v. Court of Appeals,[39] this Court ruled that the prosecutions right to due process is violated when the trial court
Cases Nos. 119831 and 119832 on a demurrer to evidence on the ground of insufficiency of evidence which amounts to an aborted its right to complete its presentation of evidence, thus:
acquittal from which no appeal can be had.
The order of the Court of Appeals reinstating the criminal case for further hearing by the trial court does not violate the rule
The rule on double jeopardy, however, is not without exceptions. In People v. Laguio, Jr.,[30] this Court stated that the only on double jeopardy. One of the elements of double jeopardy is a competent court. The trial court in this case was ousted
instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion, thus: from its jurisdiction when it violated the right of the prosecution to due process by aborting its right to complete the
presentation of its evidence. Hence, the first jeopardy had not been terminated. The remand of the case for further hearing or
x x x The only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted with grave abuse of trial is merely a continuation of the first jeopardy. It does not expose the accused to a second jeopardy. x x x[40]
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to
present its case or where the trial was a sham. However, while certiorari may be availed of to correct an erroneous Thus, the question to be resolved, given the factual molding of herein petition, is did the RTC violate petitioners right to due
acquittal, the petitioner in such an extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its process? On this note, this Court rules that petitioner was given more than ample opportunity to present its case as gleaned
authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice. [31] from the factual antecedents which led to the grant of respondents demurrer.

After an extensive review of previous Court decisions relevant to herein petition, this Court finds that the abovementioned On September 18, 2001, petitioner completed its presentation of evidence and, on the day after, filed its formal offer of
exception is inapplicable to the factual milieu herein. This Court finds that the RTC did not abuse its discretion in the evidence. On January 21, 2002, respondent filed an opposition to petitioners formal offer. Instead of filing a reply as
manner it conducted the proceedings of the trial, as well as its grant of respondents demurrer to evidence. directed by the RTC, petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw Prosecutions Formal Offer of Evidence and to Re-open
Presentation of Evidence.[41]Said motion was granted by the RTC and petitioner thus continued its presentation of evidence.
Grave abuse of discretion defies exact definition, but it generally refers to "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as
is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a On January 28, 2003, petitioner ended its presentation of additional witnesses and was then ordered by the RTC to formally
positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the offer its exhibits. On February 26, 2003, petitioner filed a request for marking of certain documents and motion to admit
power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. [32] attached formal offer of evidence.[42] The motion was initially denied by the RTC, but on motion for reconsideration the
same was granted by the RTC. The RTC, thus, ordered petitioner to file anew its formal offer of evidence. Finally, on
In Galman v. Sandiganbayan,[33] this Court ruled that the prosecution was denied due process of law when the trial was but a November 24, 2003, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence.[43]
mock trial, to wit:
After respondent filed its Demurer to Evidence, the RTC, in an Order dated January 29, 2004, directed petitioner to file its
More so does the rule against the invoking of double jeopardy hold in the cases at bar where as we have held, the sham trial opposition thereto. On February 18, 2004, petitioner filed its Opposition[44] to the demurrer.
was but a mock trial where the authoritarian president ordered respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan to rig the trial
and closely monitored the entire proceedings to assure the predetermined final outcome of acquittal and total absolution as Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the RTC never prevented petitioner from presenting its case. Unlike
innocent of all the respondents-accused.[34] in Bocar and Saldana where the prosecution was prevented from completing its presentation of evidence, petitioner was
given the opportunity to present its case, formally offer its evidence and oppose respondents demurrer. It even bears to point
In addition, in People v. Bocar,[35] this Court ruled that there is no double jeopardy when the prosecution was not allowed to out that the RTC even allowed petitioner to withdraw its formal offer of evidence after having initially rested its case and
complete its presentation of evidence by the trial court, to wit: then continue its presentation by introducing additional witnesses. Thus, no grave abuse can be attributed to the RTC as
petitioners right to due process was not violated. Even Galman finds no application to the case at bar as clearly such trial
It is evident from the brief transcript of the proceedings held on July 7, 1967 that the parties were not placed under oath
cannot be considered a sham based on the abovementioned considerations.
before they answered the queries of the respondent Judge (pp. 11-17, rec.). Verily, no evidence in law had as yet been
entered into the records of the case before respondent Court. Respondent Court's issuance of the questioned dismissal order Petitioner argues that the RTC displayed resolute bias when it chose to grant respondents demurrer to evidence
was arbitrary, whimsical and capricious, a veritable abuse of discretion which this Court cannot permit. notwithstanding that it had filed a Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Resolution of Accused Dante Tans Demurrer to Evidence
and The Prosecutions Opposition Thereto.[45] Petitioner contends that instead of acting on the motion, the RTC peremptorily
Moreover, it is clear from the same transcript that the prosecution never had a chance to introduce and offer its evidence
granted respondents demurrer to evidence which prevented petitioner from its intention to file a petition for certiorari to
formally in accordance with the Rules of Court (pp. 11-17, rec.). Verily, the prosecution was denied due process.
question the December 11, 2003 and January 27, 2004 Orders of the RTC.
Where the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case, its right to due process is thereby
While it would have been ideal for the RTC to hold in abeyance the resolution of the demurrer to evidence, nowhere in the
violated. x x x[36]
rules, however, is it mandated to do so. Furthermore, even if this Court were to consider the same as an error on the part of
Likewise, in People v. Judge Albano,[37] this Court held that there is no double jeopardy when the trial court preemptively the RTC, the same would merely constitute an error of procedure or of judgment and not an error of jurisdiction as
dismissed the case, thus: persistently argued by petitioner. Errors or irregularities, which do not render the proceedings a nullity, will not defeat a plea
of antrefois acquit.[46] We are bound by the dictum that whatever error may have been committed effecting the dismissal of WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The June 14, 2004 Resolution and February 24, 2005
the case cannot now be corrected because of the timely plea of double jeopardy. [47] To reiterate, the only instance when Resolution of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 83433 are AFFIRMED.
double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction which cannot be attributed to the RTC simply because it chose not to hold in abeyance the resolution of the SO ORDERED.
demurrer to evidence. Consequently, petitioners attempt to put in issue the December 11, 2003 and January 27, 2004 Orders
of the RTC which denied admission of certain documentary exhibits in evidence must fail. As correctly manifested by the
CA, the said Orders have already been overtaken by the March 16, 2004 Order, which already granted respondents demurrer
to evidence. Hence, this Court would be violating the rules on double jeopardy if the twin orders were to be reviewed after a
JUDGMENT:
finding that the CA did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in granting the demurrer to evidence. SECOND DIVISION
Lastly, even if this Court were to review the action taken by the RTC in granting the demurrer to evidence, no grave abuse [G.R. No. 133289. December 23, 1999]
can be attributed to it as it appears that the 29-page Order granting the demurrer was arrived at after due consideration of the
merits thereto. As correctly observed by the CA, the RTC extensively discussed its position on the various issues brought to LICERIO A. ANTIPORDA, JR., ELITERIO RUBIACO, VICTOR GASCON and CAESAR TALIA petitioners, vs.
contention by petitioner. One of the main reasons for the RTCs decision to grant the demurrer was the absence of evidence HON. FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, HON. EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL, HON. CATALINO CASTAEDA, JR.
to prove the classes of shares that the Best World Resources Corporation stocks were divided into, whether there are in their capacity as Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan respondents.
preferred shares as well as common shares, or even which type of shares respondent had acquired, thus:
DECISION
To secure conviction for the violations of RSA Secs. 32 (a-1) and 36 (a), it is necessary to prove the following: (1) the BW
Resources Corporation (BW) has equity securities registered under the Revised Securities Act; [2] that the equity securities BUENA, J.:
of BW Resources Corporation are divided into classes, and that these classes are registered pursuant to the Revised
Securities Act; (3) the number of shares of BW Resources Corporation (authorized the number of shares of BW Resources This is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order to restrain
(authorized capital stock) and the total number of shares per class of stock; (4) the number of shares of a particular class of the respondent Justices of the First Division of the Sandiganbayan from further proceeding with Crim. Case No. 24339 and
BW stock acquired by the accused; (5) the fact of the exact date, the accused [becomes] the beneficial owner of ten (10%) from enforcing the warrants for the arrest of the accused named therein (herein petitioners) or to maintain
percent of a particular class of BW shares; and (6) the fact, the accused failed to disclose his ten (10%) percent ownership the status quo until further orders from this Court.
within ten days from becoming such owner. The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
It is very clear from the evidence formally offered, that the foregoing facts were not proven or established. These Accused Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr., Eliterio Rubiaco, Victor Gascon, and Caesar Talla were charged with the crime of
cases were for Violations of RSA Rule 32 (a)-1 and Section 56 of Revised Securities Act, however, it is very surprising kidnapping one Elmer Ramos in an Information dated September 18, 1997. It was filed with the First Division of the
that the prosecution never presented in evidence the Article of Incorporation of BW Resources Corporation. This Sandiganbayan comprised of the Honorable Francis E. Garchitorena, Edilberto E. Sandoval, and Catalino Castaeda, Jr. The
document is very vital and is the key to everything, including the conviction of the accused. Without the Article of Information reads as follows:
Incorporation, the Court has no way of knowing the capitalization authorized capital stock of the BW Resources
Corporation, the classes of shares into which its stock is divided and the exact holdings of Dante Tan in the said That on or about September 1, 1995, in the Municipality of Sanchez Mira, Province of Cagayan and within the jurisdiction
corporation. Its not being a prosecutions evidence renders impossible the determination of the ten (10%) percent of this Honorable Court, the said accused Eliterio Rubiaco, Caesar Talla, Vicente Gascon and Licerio Antiporda, Jr., armed
beneficial ownership of accused Dante Tan, as there is no focal point to base the computation of his holdings, and the with guns, conspiring together and helping one another, by means of force, violence and intimidation and without legal
exact date of his becoming an owner of ten (10%) percent.[48] grounds or any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap and carry away one Elmer
Ramos from his residence in Marzan, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan against his will with the use of a Maroon Tamaraw FX motor
There is no showing that the conclusions made by the RTC on the sufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution at the time vehicle.
the prosecution rested its case, is manifestly mistaken. Assuming, however, that there is an error of judgment on the denial
of admission of certain exhibits of the prosecution and the appreciation of the prosecutions case, there is to this Courts mind, CONTRARY TO LAW[1]
no capricious exercise of judgment that would overcome the defense of double jeopardy.
On November 10, 1997, the Court issued an order giving the prosecution represented by Prosecutor Evelyn T. Lucero
Withal, it bears to stress that the fundamental philosophy behind the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy is to Agcaoili thirty (30) days within which to submit the amendment to the Information. The said order is quoted in full as
afford the defendant, who has been acquitted, final repose and safeguard him from government oppression through the abuse follows:
of criminal processes.[49] While petitioner insists that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion, this Court finds that
none can be attributed to the RTC. Consequently, the CA did not err when it affirmed the assailed Orders of the RTC. ORDER

On a final note, this Court is aware of this Courts Third Division Decision dated April 21, 2009 entitled Dante Tan v. People This morning, the prosecution represented by Prosecutor Evelyn T. Lucero Agcaoili appeared in response to this Courts
of the Philippines[50] wherein respondent argued that his right to a speedy trial was violated by the prosecution. This Court Order of clarification on the propriety of proceeding with the Information as it stands.
denied the petition and ruled for the remand of the case to the RTC for further proceedings. It must be pointed out that said
decision involves Criminal Case No. 119830,[51] which is distinct and separate from Criminal Case No. 119831 and Criminal On her own, Prosecutor Agcaoili informed the Court that there were inadequacies in the allegations in the Information for
Case No. 119832 which are the subject matter of herein petition. Thus, the resolution of the case at bar is without prejudice which reason she would beg leave to amend the same. The Court for its part expressed anxiety as to the Courts jurisdiction
to the proceedings that are being conducted in Criminal Case No. 119830 at whatever stage it may be. over the case considering that it was not clear whether or not the subject matter of the accusation was office related.
For this purpose, Prosecutor Agcaoili is given thirty (30) days within which to submit the amendment embodying whatever The petitioners pose the following questions for the resolution of this Court.
changes she believes are appropriate or necessary in order for the Information to effectively describe the offense herein
charged. Within the same period, Prosecutor Agcaoili shall submit an expansion of the recommendation to file the instant a) CAN THE SANDIGANBAYAN, WHICH HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE
Information against the accused before this Court indicating thereon the office related character of the accusation herein so ORIGINAL INFORMATION, SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIRE SUCH JURISDICTION BY THE SIMPLE EXPEDIENT OF
that the Court might effectively exercise its jurisdiction over the same. AMENDING THE INFORMATION TO SUPPLY, FOR THE FIRST TIME, JURISDICTIONAL FACTS NOT
PREVIOUSLY AVERRED IN THE ORIGINAL INFORMATION? and
SO ORDERED.[2]
b) COROLLARILY, CAN THE AMENDED INFORMATION BE ALLOWED WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANEW A
The prosecution on even date complied with the said order and filed an Amended Information, which was admitted by the PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION FOR THE GRAVER OFFENSE CHARGED THEREIN?
Sandiganbayan in a resolution dated November 24, 1997.[3] The Amended Information thus reads:
The petition is devoid of merit.
That on or about September 10, 1997, at Sanchez Mira, Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused Licerio Antiporda, Jr., being the Municipal Mayor of Buguey, Cagayan in the exercise of his official duties as such Jurisdiction is the power with which courts are invested for administering justice, that is, for hearing and deciding cases. In
and taking advantage of his position, ordered, confederated and conspired with Juan Gallardo, Barangay Captain of San order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter
Lorenzo, Buguey, Cagayan (now deceased) and accused Eliterio Rubiaco, barangay councilman of San Lorenzo, Buguey, and the parties.[14]
Cagayan, Vicente Gascon and Caesar Talla with the use of firearms, force, violence and intimidation, did then and there
Section 4, paragraph (a) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by P.D. No. 1861 provides for the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan:
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap and abduct the victim Elmer Ramos without any authority of law from his
residence at Marzan, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan against his will, with the use of a Maroon Tamaraw FX motor vehicle and Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. -- The Sandiganbayan shall exercise:
subsequently bring and detain him illegally at the residence of accused Mayor Licerio Antiporda, Jr. for more than five (5)
days. (a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4] xxx
Accused then filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion dated November 16, 1997 praying that a reinvestigation of the case be (2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, including those
conducted and the issuance of warrants of arrest be deferred.[5] employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where the
penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine
An order dated November 26, 1997 was penned by Prosecutor Evelyn T. Lucero-Agcaoili recommending the denial of the of P6,000.00. Provided, however, That offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the penalty prescribed by law
accuseds Urgent Omnibus Motion[6] was approved by Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto on January 9, 1998.[7] does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years or a fine of P6,000.00 shall be tried by the proper
Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court.
The accused thereafter filed on March 5, 1998 a Motion for New Preliminary Investigation and to Hold in Abeyance and/or
Recall Warrant of Arrest Issued.[8] The same was denied in an order given in open court dated March 12, 1998 "on the The Sandiganbayan exercises not only civil but also criminal jurisdiction. Criminal jurisdiction, as defined in the case
ground that there was nothing in the Amended Information that was added to the original Information so that the accused of People vs. Mariano[15], is necessarily the authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for it.
could not claim a right to be heard separately in an investigation in the Amended Information.Additionally, the Court ruled
that 'since none of the accused have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court, the accused are not in a position to The case of Arula vs. Espino[16]enumerates the requirements wherein a court acquires jurisdiction to try a criminal case, to
be heard on this matter at this time' (p. 245, Record)."[9] wit:
Subsequently, the accused filed on March 24, 1998 a Motion to Quash the Amended Information for lack of jurisdiction To paraphrase: beyond the pale of disagreement is the legal tenet that a court acquires jurisdiction to try a criminal case only
over the offense charged.[10] when the following requisites concur: (1) the offense is one which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance of, (2)
the offense must have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction, and (3) the person charged with the offense must
On March 27, 1998, the Sandiganbayan issued an Order, to wit: have been brought in to its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court.
"The Motion to Quash filed in behalf of the accused by Atty. Orlando B. Consigna is ignored, it appearing that the accused The petitioners argue that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case because the original
have continually refused or otherwise failed to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of this Court. At all events there is an information did not allege that one of the petitioners, Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr., took advantage of his position as mayor of
Amended Information here which makes an adequate description of the position of the accused thus vesting this Court with Buguey, Cagayan to order the kidnapping of Elmer Ramos. They likewise assert that lacking jurisdiction a court can not
the office related character of the offense of the accused. order the amendment of the information. In the same breath, they contend however that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction
over the persons of the accused.
"SO ORDERED."[11]
They question the assumption of jurisdiction by the Sandiganbayan over their case yet they insist that said court acquired
A motion for reconsideration was filed on April 3, 1998 by the accused wherein it was alleged that the filing of the Motion
jurisdiction over their motion to quash. The petitioner can not have their cake and eat it too.
to Quash and the appearance of their counsel during the scheduled hearing thereof amounted to their voluntary appearance
and invested the court with jurisdiction over their persons.[12] In the aforementioned case of Arula vs. Espino[17]it was quite clear that all three requisites, i.e., jurisdiction over the offense,
territory and person, must concur before a court can acquire jurisdiction to try a case.
The Sandiganbayan denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the accused in its resolution dated April 24, 1998. [13]
It is undisputed that the Sandiganbayan had territorial jurisdiction over the case.
Hence, this petition filed by Licerio A. Antiporda, Jr., Eliterio Rubiaco, Victor Gascon, and Caesar Talla.
And we are in accord with the petitioners when they contended that when they filed a motion to quash it was tantamount to a We hold that the reinvestigation is not necessary anymore. A reinvestigation is proper only if the accuseds substantial rights
voluntary submission to the Courts authority. They cite the case of Layosa vs. Rodriguez[18] in support of their would be impaired. In the case at bar, we do not find that their rights would be unduly prejudiced if the Amended
contention. For therein, it was ruled that the voluntary appearance of the accused at the pre-suspension hearing amounted to Information is filed without a reinvestigation taking place. The amendments made to the Information merely describe the
his submission to the courts jurisdiction even if no warrant of arrest has yet been issued. public positions held by the accused/petitioners and stated where the victim was brought when he was kidnapped.

To counter this contention of the petitioners the prosecution adverted to case of de los Santos-Reyes vs. Montesa, It must here be stressed that a preliminary investigation is essentially inquisitorial, and it is often the only means of
Jr.[19] which was decided some 28 years after the Layosa case. In this more recent case, it was held that: discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the prosecutor to prepare his complaint or
information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been
xxx the accused xxx have no right to invoke the processes of the court since they have not been placed in the custody of the committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof, and it does not place the persons
law or otherwise deprived of their liberty by reason or as a consequence of the filling of the information. For the same accused in jeopardy. It is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties evidence; it is for the presentation
reason, the court had no authority to act on the petition. of such evidence only as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is
probably guilty thereof.[22]
We find that the case of Layosa and de los Santos-Reyes are not inconsistent with each other since both these cases
discussed the rules on when a court acquires jurisdiction over the persons of the accused, i.e., either through the enforcement The purpose of a preliminary investigation has been achieved already and we see no cogent nor compelling reason why a
of warrants of arrest or their voluntary submission to the court. reinvestigation should still be conducted.
The only difference, we find, is that the de los Santos-Reyes case harped mainly on the warrant of arrest angle while the As an aside, an offense is considered committed in relation to office when it is intimately connected with their respective
Layosa case dealt more on the issue of voluntary submission ruling, that the appearance at the hearing through a lawyer was offices and was perpetrated while they were in the performance, though improper or irregular, of their official functions. [23]
a submission to the courts jurisdiction.
In the case of Cunanan vs. Arceo, it was held that:
Having discussed the third requirement we now come to the question of whether or not the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction
over the offense charged. ... the absence in the information filed on 5 April 1991 before Branch 46 of the RTC of San Fernando, Pampanga, of an
allegation that petitioner had committed the offense charged in relation to his office is immaterial and easily
We answer in the negative. The original Information filed with the Sandiganbayan did not mention that the offense remedied. Respondent RTC judges had forwarded petitioners case to the Sandiganbayan, and the complete records
committed by the accused is office-related. It was only after the same was filed that the prosecution belatedly remembered transmitted thereto in accordance with the directions of this Court set out in the Asuncion case: x x x As if it was originally
that a jurisdictional fact was omitted therein. filed with [the Sandiganbayan]. That Information may be amended at any time before arraignment before
the Sandiganbayan, and indeed, by leave of court at any time before judgment is rendered by the Sandiganbayan,
However, we hold that the petitioners are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan for in the
considering that such an amendment would not affect the juridical nature of the offense charged (i.e., murder), the qualifying
supplemental arguments to motion for reconsideration and/or reinvestigation dated June 10, 1997 [20] filed with the same
circumstances alleged in the information, or the defenses that petitioner may assert before the Sandiganbayan. In other
court, it was they who challenged the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over the case and clearly stated in their Motion
words, the amendment may be made before the Sandiganbayan without surprising the petitioner or prejudicing his
for Reconsideration that the said crime is work connected, which is hereunder quoted, as follows:
substantive rights.[24] (Underscoring Supplied)
Respondents (petitioners herein) have thoroughly scanned the entire records of the instant case and no where is there any
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
evidence to show that the Honorable Prosecution Office of the Province of Cagayan have been authorized by the Office of
the Honorable Ombudsman to conduct the Preliminary Investigation much less had the former office been authorized to file SO ORDERED.
the corresponding Information as the said case, if evidence warrants, fall exclusively with the jurisdiction of the Honorable
Sandiganbayan notwithstanding the presence of other public officers whose salary range is below 27 and notwithstanding
the presence of persons who are not public officers.
THIRD DIVISION
It is a well-settled rule that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent,
and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction. [21] [G.R. No. 123340. August 29, 2002]

We therefore hold that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case because of estoppel and it was thus vested with the LUTGARDA CRUZ, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the HEIRS
authority to order the amendment of the Information. OF ESTANISLAWA C. REYES, represented by MIGUEL C. REYES, respondents.

Rule 110, Section 14 of the Rules of Court provides thus: DECISION

Section 14. Amendment. The information or complaint may be amended, in substance or form, without leave of court, at any CARPIO, J.:
time before the accused pleads; and thereafter and during the trial as to all matters of form, by leave and at the discretion of
the court, when the same can be done without prejudice to the rights of the accused. The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to reverse the Decision of the Court of
xxx xxx xxx
Appeals dated March 31, 1995[1] and its Resolution dated December 1, 1995.[2] The Court of Appeals dismissed for being
Petitioner prayed that a reinvestigation be made in view of the Amended Information. insufficient in substance the Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus, which sought to nullify two orders of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 53, dated April 18, 1994 and May 6, 1994.
The Antecedent Facts Patent from the language of the said section is that in case service is made by registered mail, proof of service shall be made
by (a) affidavit of the person mailing and (b) the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. Both must concur. In the case
The City Prosecutor of Manila charged petitioner with the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document before the at bench, there was no such affidavit or registry receipt when the motion was considered. Thus, respondent Judge cannot be
Manila Regional Trial Court.[3] Petitioner executed before a Notary Public in the City of Manila an Affidavit of Self- said to have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in ruling in the manner he did. [7]
Adjudication of a parcel of land stating that she was the sole surviving heir of the registered owner when in fact she knew
there were other surviving heirs. Since the offended party did not reserve the right to file a separate civil action arising from The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial courts order of May 6, 1994 denying the subsequent motion for reconsideration,
the criminal offense, the civil action was deemed instituted in the criminal case. as follows:

After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its decision dated January 17, 1994 acquitting petitioner on the ground of xxx, while there is merit in petitioners submission that the motion for reconsideration dated April 22, 1994 was not a second
reasonable doubt. In the same decision, the trial court rendered judgment on the civil aspect of the case, ordering the return motion for reconsideration of a final order or judgment, as contemplated in the Interim Rules because the motion sought to
to the surviving heirs of the parcel of land located in Bulacan.[4] impugn the order dated 18 April 1994 not on the basis of the issues raised in the motion for reconsideration dated 07
February 1994 but on the erroneous legal conclusion of the order dated May 6, 1994, [8] this is already academic. The
On January 28, 1994, petitioner received a copy of the decision. decision dated January 7, 1994 had long become final when the second motion for reconsideration was filed on 03 May
1994. Hence, the pairing Judge who issued the order on 06 May 1994 had no more legal competence to promulgate the
On February 10, 1994, petitioner filed by registered mail a motion for reconsideration dated February 7, 1994, assailing the
same.[9]
trial courts ruling on the civil aspect of the criminal case. Petitioner furnished the City Prosecutor a copy of the motion by
registered mail. Finally, the Court of Appeals upheld the assailed decision of the trial court on the civil aspect of the case, to wit:
On April 18, 1994, the trial court denied petitioners motion for reconsideration stating: x x x, the institution of a criminal action carries with it the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the
offense charged. There was neither reservation nor waiver of the right to file the civil action separately nor has one been
Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration dated February 7, 1994, filed by the accused through counsel and considering that
instituted to the criminal action. Hence, the civil action for the civil liability has been impliedly instituted with the filing of
there is nothing to show that the Office of the City Prosecutor was actually furnished or served with a copy of the said
the criminal case before respondent Judge. This is the law on the matter. The proposition submitted by petitioner that the
Motion for Reconsideration within the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days from receipt by the accused on January 28,
court presided by respondent Judge had no jurisdiction over the property because it is located in Bulacan - outside the
1994 of a copy of the Courts decision dated January 17, 1994, so that the same is already final and executory, let the Motion
territorial jurisdiction of said court -does not hold water. Being a civil liability arising from the offense charged, the
for Reconsideration be Denied for lack of merit.[5]
governing law is the Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the civil procedure rules which pertain to civil action arising from the
Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the trial courts order of April 18, 1994. The trial court denied the same in an order initiatory pleading that gives rise to the suit.[10]
dated May 6, 1994, to wit:
In the dispositive portion of its assailed decision, the Court of Appeals declared:
Under the Interim Rules, no party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a final order or judgment (Sec. 4).
WHEREFORE, the instant petition not being sufficient in substance is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and the case
The motion of accused dated 22 April 1994 is a violation of this rule.
DISMISSED.[11]
WHEREFORE, said motion is DENIED.[6]
In a resolution dated December 1, 1995, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. [12]
Left with no recourse, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals to nullify the two
Hence, this petition.
assailed orders of the trial court. Petitioner also asked the Court of Appeals to compel the trial court to resolve her motion
for reconsideration of the decision dated February 7, 1994. The Issues
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals In her Memorandum, petitioner raises the following issues:
On March 31, 1995, the Court of Appeals denied due course to the petition and dismissed the case for being insufficient in 1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS DULY
substance. FURNISHED WITH COPY OF THE PETITIONERS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH RESPECT TO THE
DECISION ON THE CIVIL ASPECT OF CRIMINAL CASE NO. 87-54773 (SIC) OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
The Court of Appeals sustained the trial courts order of April 18, 1994 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. The
OF MANILA, BRANCH 53.
Court of Appeals declared in part:
2. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
Section 10, Rule 13, Rules of Court, provides as follows:
MANILA HAD JURISDICTION TO RENDER JUDGMENT ON THE CIVIL ASPECT OF CRIMINAL CASE NO. 87-
SEC. 10. Proof of Service. Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the affidavit 57743 FOR FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT, INVOLVING A PROPERTY LOCATED IN BULACAN.
of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail,
3. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE
proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with Section 5 of this rule. If
PROCESS WHEN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 53, RENDERED DECISION ON THE
service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing
CIVIL ASPECT OF CRIMINAL CASE NO. 87-57743.[13]
office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon receipt thereof by the sender, or in lieu thereof the letter
unclaimed together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee. The Ruling of the Court
We grant the petition. mail, a motion for reconsideration. However, petitioner failed to attach both the affidavit and the registry receipt to the
motion for reconsideration as required by the Rules.
When the accused is acquitted on reasonable doubt but is adjudged civilly liable, his motion for reconsideration of the civil
aspect must be served not only on the prosecution, also on the offended party if the latter is not represented by a private The defect of the motion is apparent on its face. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was a mere scrap of paper as it did
counsel. Moreover, if the trial court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the accused, and the crime was not contain the required proof of service.
committed within its territorial jurisdiction, it necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all matters that the law requires the
court to resolve. This includes the power to order the restitution to the offended party of real property located in another However, petitioner is contesting that part of the decision of the trial court finding him civilly liable even as he is acquitted
province. from the criminal charge on reasonable doubt. This raises the issue of whether the public prosecutor is the only proper party
to be served with petitioners motion for reconsideration. The present Rules do not require the accused to serve a copy of his
Absence of Proof of Service motion for reconsideration on the offended party who may not be represented by a private counsel. The Rules require
service only on the public prosecutor if the offended party is not represented by a private counsel.
The first issue is whether petitioners motion for reconsideration dated February 7, 1994 complied with the mandatory
requirements of Section 6, Rule 15 on proof of service. Petitioner submits that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the A judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal because of the
trial courts finding that the City Prosecutor was not duly and timely furnished with petitioners motion for reconsideration of constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. However, either the offended party or the accused may appeal the civil
February 7, 1994. aspect of the judgment despite the acquittal of the accused. The public prosecutor has generally no interest in appealing the
civil aspect of a decision acquitting the accused.
Petitioner asserts that both copies of the motion for reconsideration were sent to the trial court and the City Prosecutor by
registered mail on February 10, 1994. Petitioner relies on jurisprudence that the date of mailing is the date of filing, arguing The acquittal ends the work of the public prosecutor and the case is terminated as far as he is concerned.
that the date of mailing of both motions was on February 10, 1994. Petitioner maintains that the motion was properly filed
within the 15-day period, citing the registry return card which shows actual receipt on February 22, 1994 by the City The real parties in interest in the civil aspect of a decision are the offended party and the accused. Thus, any appeal or
Prosecutor of a copy of the motion. motion for reconsideration of the civil aspect of a decision in a criminal case must be served on the other real party in
interest. If the offended party appeals or moves for reconsideration, the accused is necessarily served a copy of the pleading
The Court of Appeals, noting that petitioner received a copy of the decision on January 28, 1994, stated that petitioner had through his counsel.
until February 12, 1994 to appeal the decision or file a motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals ruled that
petitioner, by filing a motion for reconsideration without any proof of service, merely filed a scrap of paper and not a motion If the accused appeals or moves for reconsideration, a lacuna arises if the offended party is not represented by a private
for reconsideration. Hence, the reglementary period of petitioner to appeal continued to run and lapsed after the 15-day counsel. In such a situation, under the present Rules only the public prosecutor is served the notice of appeal or a copy of the
period, making the trial courts decision final and executory. motion for reconsideration. To fill in this lacuna in the present Rules, we require that henceforth if the accused appeals or
moves for reconsideration, he should serve a copy of his pleading on the offended party himself if the latter is not
We agree with the Court of Appeals that petitioner patently failed to comply with the mandatory requirements on proof of represented by a private counsel. This is in addition to service on the public prosecutor who is the counsel of record of the
service insofar as the public prosecutor is concerned. The Court has stressed time and again that non-compliance with State.
Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 is a fatal defect. The well-settled rule is that a motion which fails to comply with Sections 4,
5, and 6 of Rule 15 is a useless piece of paper. If filed, such motion is not entitled to judicial cognizance and does not stop In the instant case, the Court notes that petitioner did not serve a copy of her motion for reconsideration on the offended
the running of the reglementary period for filing the requisite pleading. [14] party who was not represented by a private counsel in the trial court. In the interest of justice, and considering that the
present Rules are silent on the matter, it is only fair to give petitioner a period of five days from receipt of this decision
Section 6 of Rule 15 reads: within which to serve a copy of her motion for reconsideration on the offended party.

SEC. 6. - Proof of service to be filed with motions. No motion shall be acted upon by the court, without proof of service of Trial courts jurisdiction over the civil aspect.
the notice thereof.[15] (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioner maintains that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the trial court had jurisdiction to render judgment on the
From the language of the rule, proof of service is mandatory. Without such proof of service to the adverse party, a motion is civil aspect of the criminal case. Petitioner asserts that the Manila trial court had no jurisdiction over the parcel of land in
nothing but an empty formality deserving no judicial cognizance. Bulacan which is outside the trial courts territorial jurisdiction.

Section 13 of Rule 13 further requires that: In upholding the trial courts jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals held:

SEC. 13. Proof of Service. x x x. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the Being a civil liability arising from the offense charged, the governing law is the Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the civil
registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the procedure rules which pertain to civil action arising from the initiatory pleading that gives rise to the suit. [17]
sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster
to the addressee.[16] (Emphasis supplied) We agree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals.

If service is by registered mail, proof of service consists of the affidavit of the person mailing and the registry receipt, both Petitioner asserts that the location of the subject property outside the courts territorial jurisdiction deprived the trial court of
of which must be appended to the motion. Absent one or the other, or worse both, there is no proof of service. jurisdiction over the civil aspect of the criminal case. This argument is contrary to the law and the rules.

In the instant case, an examination of the record shows that petitioner received a copy of the trial courts decision of January There are three important requisites which must be present before a court can acquire criminal jurisdiction. First, the court
17, 1994 on January 28, 1994. Within the reglementary period to appeal, petitioner filed on February 10, 1994, by registered must have jurisdiction over the subject matter. Second, the court must have jurisdiction over the territory where the offense
was committed. Third, the court must have jurisdiction over the person of the accused. [18] In the instant case, the trial court
had jurisdiction over the subject matter as the law has conferred on the court the power to hear and decide cases involving
estafa through falsification of a public document. The trial court also had jurisdiction over the offense charged since the On December 9, 2011, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction, 2 disposing thusly:cralawlibrary
crime was committed within its territorial jurisdiction. The trial court also acquired jurisdiction over the person of accused-
petitioner because she voluntarily submitted to the courts authority. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated March 31, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Cebu
City in Criminal Case No. CBU-74629 is hereby AFFIRMED in full. The Formal Entry of Appearance of Atty. Valeriano S.
Where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of the accused, and the crime was committed Loon as the new counsel for the private complainant by reason of the death of his former counsel, Atty. Celestino Allanic, is
within its territorial jurisdiction, the court necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all issues that the law requires the court to hereby noted.
resolve. One of the issues in a criminal case is the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime. Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code provides that [E]very person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Article 104 of the same SO ORDERED.
Code states that civil liability x x x includes restitution.
Issues
The action for recovery of civil liability is deemed instituted in the criminal action unless reserved by the offended Hence, this appeal by petition for review on certiorari.
party.[19] In the instant case, the offended party did not reserve the civil action and the civil action was deemed instituted in
the criminal action. Although the trial court acquitted petitioner of the crime charged, the acquittal, grounded on reasonable The petitioner submits that both the RTC and the CA erred in their appreciation of the evidence. He insists that no witness
doubt, did not extinguish the civil liability.[20] Thus, the Manila trial court had jurisdiction to decide the civil aspect of the had actually seen him set the house on fire; that the State did not show that he had the motive to commit the arson; and that
instant case - ordering restitution even if the parcel of land is located in Bulacan. only circumstantial evidence was presented against him, but such evidence, not being incompatible with the hypothesis
favoring his innocence, was insufficient to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Consequently, while we find no reversible error in the decision of the Court of Appeals as to proof of service and the trial
courts jurisdiction on the civil aspect, we remand this case for further proceedings in the interest of justice. Ruling
The Court affirms the conviction.
WHEREFORE, petitioner is given five (5) days from receipt of this decision within which to serve a copy of her motion
for reconsideration on the offended party. Let this case be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The lack or absence of direct evidence does not necessarily mean that the guilt of the accused cannot be proved by evidence
other than direct evidence. Direct evidence is not the sole means of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, because
SO ORDERED.
circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can supplant the absence of direct evidence. The crime charged may also be proved by
circumstantial evidence, sometimes referred to as indirect or presumptive evidence. Circumstantial evidence has been
defined as that which “goes to prove a fact or series of facts other than the facts in issue, which, if proved, may tend by
CONTENTS OF JUDGMENT: inference to establish a fact in issue.”3cralaw virtualaw library

FIRST DIVISION The RTC’s reliance on circumstantial evidence was sanctioned by Rule 133, Section 4 of the Rules of Court,4 which requires
for circumstantial evidence to warrant the conviction of an accused that, firstly, there are more than one
G.R. No. 206236, July 15, 2013 circumstance; secondly, the facts from which the circumstances arose are duly established in court; and, thirdly, the
circumstances form an unbroken chain of events leading to the fair conclusion of the culpability of the accused for the crime
GILFREDO BACOLOD, A.K.A. GILARDO BACOLOD, Accused-Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE for which he is convicted. Ostensibly, our rules “make no distinction between direct evidence of a fact and evidence of
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Respondent. circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred. No greater degree of certainty is required when the
RESOLUTION evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct, for in either case, the trier of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable
doubt of the guilt of the accused.”5cralaw virtualaw library
BERSAMIN, J.:
The State’s witnesses credibly and reliably described a chain of circumstances that absolutely incriminated the petitioner in
the criminal burning of the house of complainants Spouses Ceferino and Gemma Cogtas. As both the trial and appellate
courts found, the following interconnected factual links were proved, namely: (1) prosecution witness Ruben Gonzales heard
It is imperative that the courts prescribe the proper penalties when convicting the accused, and determine the civil liability to the loud voices of the petitioner and his sister coming from the Cogtas house that the Bacolod family had been renting, with
be imposed on the accused, unless there has been a reservation of the action to recover civil liability or a waiver of its the petitioner demanding money from his sister Daisy Mae Bacolod but the latter not acceding to the demand; he was then
recovery. only about 15 arm’s lengths away from the Cogtas house; (2) not soon after, Gonzales heard a commotion inside the Cogtas
house, and then immediately saw Daisy Mae and three other persons running out of the house asking for help; (3) Gonzales
Antecedents
himself going towards the house to see what was happening, saw the petitioner in the kitchen waving a flaming blanket that
On March 31, 2008, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, in Cebu City convicted the petitioner of
he had lit from the burner stove; (4) the petitioner then came out of the house, daring anyone to arrest him; (5) Gonzales
arson,1viz:cralawlibrary
turned off the burner stove in the kitchen, even as he saw the ceiling of the kitchen already in flames; and (6) the fire
WHEREFORE, in finding [the] accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Arson, this Court hereby immediately spread to the other parts of the house, and which eventually burned down the house completely. Gonzales’
sentences him to suffer imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) Years of Prision Mayor in its medium period as minimum to account about the commotion inside the house was corroborated by Alexander Cernal, a barangay tanod who happened to
Sixteen (16) Years of Reclusion Temporal in its medium period as maximum. be on board his tricycle at the same subdivision where the Cogtas house was located.

SO ORDERED. The CA did not err in holding that the State’s circumstantial evidence sufficed for the conviction of the petitioner. Indeed,
the unbroken chain of circumstances established from the recollections of witnesses whose motives had not been impugned
at all by the petitioner warranted no conclusion but that the petitioner had deliberately caused the burning of the house. Nonetheless, the failure to present competent proof of actual damages should not deprive the Spouses Cogtas of some degree
of indemnity for the substantial economic damage and prejudice they had suffered. According to Article 2224 of the Civil
Nonetheless, the Court needs to correct the penalty the RTC imposed on the petitioner, and which the CA affirmed “in full”. Code, temperate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the
The indeterminate sentence of 10 years of prision mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to 16 years of reclusion court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with
temporal in its medium period, as maximum, prescribed by the RTC was legally erroneous. certainty.10 For this purpose, the determination of the temperate damages rests in the sound discretion of the courts. To
illustrate, in People v. Murcia,11 the Court reduced the amount of P250,000.00 fixed by the RTC, although affirmed by the
The information specifically alleged that the house burned by the accused was an inhabited dwelling. Pursuant to Section CA, to P200,000.00 by way of temperate damages upon noting that the former amount had been based only on the
3(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1613 (Amending the Law on Arson), the penalty to be imposed if the property burned is an complainant’s estimate of the value of his house. Consequently, the Court holds that the amount of P500,000.00 in the form
inhabited house or dwelling is from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. Not being composed of three periods, of temperate damages is reasonable considering that the dwelling of the Spouses Cogtas had been completely burned down.
however, such penalty should be divided into three equal portions of time, and each portion forms one period of the
penalty.6 Yet, reclusion perpetua, being an indivisible penalty, immediately becomes the maximum period, leaving reclusion It is not amiss to stress that both the RTC and the CA disregarded their express mandate under Section 2, Rule 120 of
temporal to be divided into two in order to fix the medium and minimum periods of the penalty. The three periods of the the Rules of Court to have the judgment, if it was of conviction, state: “(1) the legal qualification of the offense constituted
prescribed penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua are then as follows:cralawlibrary by the acts committed by the accused and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances which attended its commission; (2)
the participation of the accused in the offense, whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory after the fact; (3) the penalty
Minimum period – 12 years and 1 day to 16 years; imposed upon the accused; and (4) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or omission to be
Medium period – 16 years and 1 day to 20 years; recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a
Maximum period – reclusion perpetua. separate civil action has been reserved or waived.” Their disregard compels us to act as we now do lest the Court be
unreasonably seen as tolerant of their omission. That the Spouses Cogtas did not themselves seek the correction of the
omission by an appeal is no hindrance to this action because the Court, as the final reviewing tribunal, has not only the
Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law requires the court, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by
authority but also the duty to correct at any time a matter of law and justice.
the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, to sentence the accused “to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of
which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said
We also pointedly remind all trial and appellate courts to avoid omitting reliefs that the parties are properly entitled to by
Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the
law or in equity under the established facts. Their judgments will not be worthy of the name unless they thereby fully
offense.”7Accordingly, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty in this case should be within the range of the medium
determine the rights and obligations of the litigants. It cannot be otherwise, for only by a full determination of such rights
period of the penalty, i.e., from 16 years and 1 day to 20 years, because neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance
and obligations would they be true to the judicial office of administering justice and equity for all. Courts should then be
attended the commission of the crime; and the minimum of the indeterminate sentence should be within the range of the
alert and cautious in their rendition of judgments of conviction in criminal cases. They should prescribe the legal penalties,
penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the crime, without regard to its periods.8cralaw virtualaw library
which is what the Constitution and the law require and expect them to do. Their prescription of the wrong penalties will be
invalid and ineffectual for being done without jurisdiction or in manifest grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
It appears, therefore, that the maximum of the indeterminate penalty fixed by the RTC fell short by one day in order to come
jurisdiction. They should also determine and set the civil liability ex delictoof the accused, in order to do justice to the
within the medium period of the prescribed penalty. Although such fixing by the RTC was contrary to the Indeterminate
complaining victims who are always entitled to them. The Rules of Court mandates them to do so unless the enforcement of
Sentence Law, the CA uncharacteristically condoned the violation. The correction should now be made to make the sentence
the civil liability by separate actions has been reserved or waived.
conform to law. Accordingly, the maximum of the indeterminate sentence of the petitioner is 16 years and one day
of reclusion temporal.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision promulgated on December 9, 2011 by the Court of Appeals, subject to
the MODIFICATIONS that:cralawlibrary
Another substantial detail left out by the RTC, and, later on, by the CA pertained to the civil liability to be assessed against
the petitioner in favor of the Spouses Cogtas as owners of the burned house. Having pronounced the petitioner guilty of (1) the indeterminate sentence for GILFREDO BACOLOD a.k.a. GILARDO BACOLOD is corrected from 10 years
committing arson, a crime against property, the RTC and the CA were bound to have then adjudged him civilly liable to of prision mayor, as minimum, to 16 years and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum; and
compensate the Spouses Cogtas for their substantial economic damage and prejudice as the owners of the house. The RTC
briefly discussed the economic loss of the Spouses Cogtas in its judgment but surprisingly omitted any award from the (2) GILFREDO BACOLOD a.k.a. GILARDO BACOLOD is ORDERED to pay the amount of P500,000.00 as
decretal portion. temperate damages to SPOUSES CEFERINO AND GEMMA COGTAS, plus interest of 6% per annum reckoned from
the finality of this decision, plus the costs of suit.
The unfair omission should be rectified. In the records was testimony given by Architect Gabriel F. Abear to the effect that
the Spouses Cogtas would need to spend P869,590.00 to restore their burned dwelling to its condition before the crime. In
the absence of a showing that such amount had been actually expended in a manner capable of substantiation by any SO ORDERED.
document or receipt, Abear’s valuation remained a mere estimate, and could not be the measure of an award for actual
damages. This is because, as reiterated in Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc.:9cralaw virtualaw library

Actual damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with a reasonable degree
of certainty. Courts cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of
damages. To justify an award of actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount of loss, credence can
be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts.
DOCTRINE OF VARIANCE:
The antecedents of this case, as narrated by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:
FIRST DIVISION
AAA was thirteen (13) years of age when the alleged acts of lasciviousness and sexual abuse took place on three (3)
G.R. No. 202122, January 15, 2014 different dates, particularly [in December 2003], February 2004, and March 27, 2004.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. BERNABE PAREJA Y CRUZ, Accused–Appellant. AAA’s parents separated when she was [only eight years old9 ]. At the time of the commission of the aforementioned
DECISION
crimes, AAA was living with her mother and with herein accused–appellant Bernabe Pareja who, by then, was cohabiting
with her mother, together with three (3) of their children, aged twelve (12), eleven (11) and nine (9), in x x x, Pasay City.
LEONARDO–DE CASTRO, J.:
The first incident took place [i]n December 2003 [the December 2003 incident]. AAA’s mother was not in the house and
The accused–appellant Bernabe Pareja y Cruz (Pareja) is appealing the January 19, 2012 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals was with her relatives in Laguna. Taking advantage of the situation, [Pareja], while AAA was asleep, placed himself on top
in CA–G.R. CR.–H.C. No. 03794, which affirmed in toto the conviction for Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness meted out by of [her]. Then, [Pareja], who was already naked, begun to undress AAA. [Pareja] then started to suck the breasts of
Branch 113, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City in Criminal Case Nos. 04–1556–CFM and 04–1557–CFM.2 [AAA]. Not satisfied, [Pareja] likewise inserted his penis into AAA’s anus. Because of the excruciating pain that she felt,
AAA immediately stood up and rushed outside of their house.
On May 5, 2004, Pareja was charged with two counts of Rape and one Attempted Rape. The Informations for the three
charges read as follows: Despite such traumatic experience, AAA never told anyone about the [December 2003] incident for fear that [Pareja] might
kill her. [Pareja] threatened to kill AAA in the event that she would expose the incident to anyone.
I. For the two counts of Rape:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
AAA further narrated that the [December 2003] incident had happened more than once. According to AAA, [i]n February
Criminal Case No. 04–1556–CFM 2004 [the February 2004 incident], she had again been molested by [Pareja]. Under the same circumstances as the
[December 2003 incident], with her mother not around while she and her half–siblings were asleep, [Pareja] again laid on
That on or about and sometime in the month of February, 2004, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the top of her and started to suck her breasts. But this time, [Pareja] caressed [her] and held her vagina and inserted his finger
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above–named accused, Bernabe Pareja y Cruz, being the common law spouse of the [i]n it.
minor victim’s mother, through force, threats and intimidation, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously
commit an act of sexual assault upon the person of [AAA3 ], a minor 13 years of age, by then and there mashing her breast With regard to the last incident, on March 27, 2004 [the March 2004 incident], it was AAA’s mother who saw [Pareja] in the
and inserting his finger inside her vagina against her will.4 act of lifting the skirt of her daughter AAA while the latter was asleep. Outraged, AAA’s mother immediately brought AAA
to the barangay officers to report the said incident. AAA then narrated to the barangay officials that she had been sexually
Criminal Case No. 04–1557–CFM abused by [Pareja] x x x many times x x x.
That on or about and sometime in the month of December, 2003, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the Subsequently, AAA, together with her mother, proceeded to the Child Protection Unit of the Philippine General Hospital for
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above–named accused, Bernabe Pareja y Cruz, being the stepfather of [AAA], a a medical and genital examination. On March 29, 2004, Dr. Tan issued Provisional Medico–Legal Report Number 2004–
minor 13 years of age, through force, threats and intimidation, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously 03–0091. Her medico–legal report stated the following conclusion:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
have carnal knowledge of said minor against her will.5
Hymen: Tanner Stage 3, hymenal remnant from 5–7 o’clock area, Type of hymen: Crescentic
II. For the charge of Attempted Rape: xxx
Criminal Case No. 04–1558–CFM
Genital findings show Clear Evidence of Blunt Force or Penetrating Trauma.
That on or about the 27th day of March, 2004, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this After the results of the medico–legal report confirmed that AAA was indeed raped, AAA’s mother then filed a complaint for
Honorable Court, the above–named accused, BERNABE PAREJA Y CRUZ, being the common law spouse of minor rape before the Pasay City Police Station.
victim’s mother by means of force, threats and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
commence the commission of the crime of Rape against the person of minor, [AAA], a 13 years old minor by then and there To exculpate himself from liability, [Pareja] offered both denial and ill motive of AAA against him as his defense. He
crawling towards her direction where she was sleeping, putting off her skirt, but did not perform all the acts of execution denied raping [AAA] but admitted that he knew her as she is the daughter of his live–in partner and that they all stay in the
which would have produce[d] the crime of rape for the reason other than his own spontaneous desistance, that is the timely same house.
arrival of minor victim’s mother who confronted the accused, and which acts of child abuse debased, degraded and
demeaned the intrinsic worth and dignity of said minor complainant as a human being. 6 Contrary to AAA’s allegations, [Pareja] averred that it would have been impossible that the alleged incidents happened. To
justify the same, [Pareja] described the layout of their house and argued that there was no way that the alleged sexual abuses
On June 17, 2004, Pareja, during his arraignment, pleaded not guilty to the charges filed against him.7 After the completion could have happened.
of the pre–trial conference on September 16, 2004,8 trial on the merits ensued.
According to [Pareja], the house was made of wood, only about four (4) meters wide by ten (10) meters, and was so small
that they all have to sit to be able to fit inside the house. Further, the vicinity where their house is located was thickly
populated with houses constructed side by side. Allegedly, AAA also had no choice but to sleep beside her siblings. Aggrieved, Pareja elevated his case to this Court15 and posited before us the following errors as he did before the Court of
Appeals:
All taken into account, [Pareja] asseverated that it was hard to imagine how he could possibly still go about with his plan
without AAA’s siblings nor their neighbors noticing the same. I

Verily, [Pareja] was adamant and claimed innocence as to the imputations hurled against him by AAA. He contended that
THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN CONVICTING [PAREJA] OF THE CRIMES CHARGED
AAA filed these charges against him only as an act of revenge because AAA was mad at [him] for being the reason behind
NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HIS GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
her parents’ separation.10
II

Ruling of the RTC

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING [PAREJA] BASED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION
WITNESS’ TESTIMONY.16
On January 16, 2009, the RTC acquitted Pareja from the charge of attempted rape but convicted him of the crimes of rape
and acts of lasciviousness in the December 2003 and February 2004 incidents, respectively. The dispositive portion of the
In his Supplemental Brief17 Pareja added the following argument:
Decision11 reads as follows:
The private complainant’s actuations after the incident negate the possibility that she was raped. 18
WHEREFORE, the herein accused Bernabe Pareja y Cruz is hereby acquitted from the charge of attempted rape in Crim.
Case No. 04–1558, for want of evidence.
Pareja’s main bone of contention is the reliance of the lower courts on the testimony of AAA in convicting him for rape and
In Crim. Case No. 04–1556, the said accused is CONVICTED with Acts of Lasciviousness and he is meted out the penalty acts of lasciviousness. Simply put, Pareja is attacking the credibility of AAA for being inconsistent. Moreover, he claimed,
of imprisonment, ranging from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day as minimum to 4 years and 2 months of prision [correccional] as AAA acted as if nothing happened after the alleged sexual abuse.
maximum.
Ruling of this Court
In Crim. Case No. 04–1557, the said accused is CONVICTED as charged with rape, and he is meted the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
This Court finds no reason to reverse Pareja’s conviction.
The accused shall be credited in full for the period of his preventive imprisonment.
Core Issue: Credibility of AAA
The accused is ordered to indemnify the offended party [AAA], the sum of P50,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment, in
case of insolvency.12 Pareja claims that AAA’s testimony cannot be the lone basis of his conviction as it was riddled with inconsistencies. 19

We find such argument untenable.

The RTC, in convicting Pareja of the crime of Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness, gave more weight to the prosecution’s
evidence as against Pareja’s baseless denial and imputation of ill motive. However, due to the failure of the prosecution to When the issue of credibility of witnesses is presented before this Court, we follow certain guidelines that have overtime
present AAA’s mother to testify about what she had witnessed in March 2004, the RTC had to acquit Pareja of the crime of been established in jurisprudence. In People v. Sanchez,20 we enumerated them as follows:
Attempted Rape in the March 2004 incident for lack of evidence. The RTC could not convict Pareja on the basis of AAA’s
testimony for being hearsay evidence as she had no personal knowledge of what happened on March 27, 2004 because she First, the Court gives the highest respect to the RTC’s evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique
was sleeping at that time. position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. From its vantage point, the trial court is in the best
position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Second, absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the RTC’s assessments and conclusions, the
reviewing court is generally bound by the lower court’s findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances,
Wanting to reverse his two convictions, Pareja appealed13
to the Court of Appeals, which on January 19, 2012, affirmed in affecting the outcome of the case, are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded.
toto the judgment of the RTC in Criminal Case Nos. 04–1556 and 04–1557, to wit:
And third, the rule is even more stringently applied if the CA concurred with the RTC. (Citations omitted.)
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED and,
consequently, DISMISSED. The appealed Decisions rendered by Branch 113 of the Regional Trial Court of the National
Capital Judicial Region in Pasay City on January 16, 2009 in Criminal Cases Nos. 04–1556 to 04–1557 are The recognized rule in this jurisdiction is that the “assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left to the trial
hereby AFFIRMED in toto.14ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary court judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their deportment and demeanor on the witness stand; a vantage
point denied appellate courts–and when his findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding
Issues
and conclusive upon this Court.”21 While there are recognized exceptions to the rule, this Court has found no substantial Pareja had to account for was fairly short, unlike “on or about the year 1992.” Moreover, Ladrillo was able to prove that he
reason to overturn the identical conclusions of the trial and appellate courts on the matter of AAA’s credibility. had only moved in the house where the rape supposedly happened, in 1993, therefore negating the allegation that he raped
the victim in that house in 1992.30
Besides, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victim’s testimony are generally expected. 22 As this Court stated
in People v. Saludo23 : While it may be true that the inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim in Ladrillo contributed to his eventual acquittal,
this Court said that they alone were not enough to reverse Ladrillo’s conviction, viz:
Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. For such an offense is not analogous to a
person’s achievement or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is something which causes deep Moreover, there are discernible defects in the complaining witness’ testimony that militates heavily against its being
psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life and which her conscious and accorded the full credit it was given by the trial court. Considered independently, the defects might not suffice to overturn
subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an the trial court’s judgment of conviction, but assessed and weighed in its totality, and in relation to the testimonies of other
accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone. (Citation witnesses, as logic and fairness dictate, they exert a powerful compulsion towards reversal of the assailed
omitted.)chanroblesvirtualawlibrary judgment.31 (Emphasis supplied.)

Since human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions, accuracy in a testimonial account has never been used It is worthy to note that Ladrillo also offered more than just a mere denial of the crime charged against him to exculpate him
as a standard in testing the credibility of a witness.24 The inconsistencies mentioned by Pareja are trivial and non– from liability. He also had an alibi, which, together with the other evidence, produced reasonable doubt that he committed
consequential matters that merely caused AAA confusion when she was being questioned. The inconsistency regarding the the crime as charged. In contrast, Pareja merely denied the accusations against him and even imputed ill motive on AAA.
year of the December incident is not even a matter pertaining to AAA’s ordeal. 25 The date and time of the commission of
the crime of rape becomes important only when it creates serious doubt as to the commission of the rape itself or the As regards Pareja’s concern about AAA’s lone testimony being the basis of his conviction, this Court has held:
sufficiency of the evidence for purposes of conviction. In other words, the “date of the commission of the rape becomes
relevant only when the accuracy and truthfulness of the complainant’s narration practically hinge on the date of the Furthermore, settled is the rule that the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce a conviction, if the same
commission of the crime.”26 Moreover, the date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime. 27 appears to be trustworthy and reliable. If credible and convincing, that alone would be sufficient to convict the accused. No
law or rule requires the corroboration of the testimony of a single witness in a rape case. 32 (Citations omitted.)
In this connection, Pareja repeatedly invokes our ruling in People v. Ladrillo,28 implying that our rulings therein are
applicable to his case. However, the factual circumstances in Ladrillo are prominently missing in Pareja’s case. In
Improbability of sexual abuse
particular, the main factor for Ladrillo’s acquittal in that case was because his constitutional right to be informed of the
in their small house and in the
nature and cause of the accusation against him was violated when the Information against him only stated that the crime was
presence of AAA’s sleeping siblings
committed “on or about the year 1992.” We said:

The peculiar designation of time in the Information clearly violates Sec. 11, Rule 110, of the Rules Court which requires that Pareja argues that it was improbable for him to have sexually abused AAA, considering that their house was so small that
the time of the commission of the offense must be alleged as near to the actual date as the information or complaint will they had to sleep beside each other, that in fact, when the alleged incidents happened, AAA was sleeping beside her younger
permit. More importantly, it runs afoul of the constitutionally protected right of the accused to be informed of the nature and siblings, who would have noticed if anything unusual was happening. 33
cause of the accusation against him. The Information is not sufficiently explicit and certain as to time to inform accused–
appellant of the date on which the criminal act is alleged to have been committed. This Court is not convinced. Pareja’s living conditions could have prevented him from acting out on his beastly desires, but
they did not. This Court has observed that many of the rape cases appealed to us were not always committed in
The phrase “on or about the year 1992” encompasses not only the twelve (12 ) months of 1992 but includes the years prior seclusion. Lust is no respecter of time or place,34 and rape defies constraints of time and space. In People v. Sangil,
and subsequent to 1992, e.g., 1991 and 1993, for which accused–appellant has to virtually account for his Sr.,35 we expounded on such occurrence in this wise:
whereabouts. Hence, the failure of the prosecution to allege with particularity the date of the commission of the offense and,
In People v. Ignacio, we took judicial notice of the interesting fact that among poor couples with big families living in small
worse, its failure to prove during the trial the date of the commission of the offense as alleged in the Information, deprived
quarters, copulation does not seem to be a problem despite the presence of other persons around them. Considering the
accused–appellant of his right to intelligently prepare for his defense and convincingly refute the charges against him. At
cramped space and meager room for privacy, couples perhaps have gotten used to quick and less disturbing modes of sexual
most, accused–appellant could only establish his place of residence in the year indicated in the Information and not for the
congresses which elude the attention of family members; otherwise, under the circumstances, it would be almost impossible
particular time he supposedly committed the rape.
to copulate with them around even when asleep. It is also not impossible nor incredible for the family members to be in
deep slumber and not be awakened while the sexual assault is being committed. One may also suppose that growing
xxx
children sleep more soundly than grown–ups and are not easily awakened by adult exertions and suspirations in the
night. There is no merit in appellant’s contention that there can be no rape in a room where other people are present. There
Indeed, the failure of the prosecution to prove its allegation in the Information that accused–appellant raped complainant in
is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. We have repeatedly declared that “lust is no respecter of time and
1992 manifestly shows that the date of the commission of the offense as alleged was based merely on speculation and
place,” and rape can be committed in even the unlikeliest of places. (Citations omitted.)
conjecture, and a conviction anchored mainly thereon cannot satisfy the quantum of evidence required for a pronouncement
of guilt, that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed on the date and place indicated in the
Information.29 (Citation omitted.) Demeanor of AAA
as a rape victim
In this case, although the dates of the December 2003 and February 2004 incidents were not specified, the period of time
Pareja asseverates that AAA’s demeanor and conduct belie her claim that she was raped. He said that “the ordinary Filipina
[would have summoned] every ounce of her strength and courage to thwart any attempt to besmirch her honor and blemish Therefore, the absence of testimony or medical certificate on the state of AAA’s anus at the time she was examined is of no
her purity.” Pareja pointed out that they lived in a thickly populated area such that any commotion inside their house would consequence. On the contrary, the medical examination actually bolsters AAA’s claim of being raped by Pareja on more
have been easily heard by the neighbors, thus, giving AAA the perfect opportunity to seek their help. 36 Moreover, Pareja than one occasion, and not just by anal penetration. However, as the prosecution failed to capitalize on such evidence and
said, AAA’s delay in reporting the incidents to her mother or the authorities negates the possibility that he indeed committed prove the incidence of carnal knowledge, Pareja cannot be convicted of rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266–A of the
the crimes. AAA’s belated confession, he claimed, “cannot be dismissed as trivial as it puts into serious doubt her Revised Penal Code.
credibility.”37
In People v. Perez,43 this Court aptly held:
A person accused of a serious crime such as rape will tend to escape liability by shifting the blame on the victim for failing
to manifest resistance to sexual abuse. However, this Court has recognized the fact that no clear–cut behavior can be This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence,
expected of a person being raped or has been raped. It is a settled rule that failure of the victim to shout or seek help do not considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of
negate rape. Even lack of resistance will not imply that the victim has consented to the sexual act, especially when that her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire
person was intimidated into submission by the accused. In cases where the rape is committed by a relative such as a father, to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. It is highly
stepfather, uncle, or common law spouse, moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence. 38 In this case, AAA’s improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so
lack of resistance was brought about by her fear that Pareja would make good on his threat to kill her if she ever spoke of the serious as rape if what she claims is not true. (Citations omitted.)
incident.
Criminal Case No. 04–1557–CFM:
AAA’s conduct, i.e., acting like nothing happened, after being sexually abused by Pareja is also not enough to discredit
The December 2003 Incident
her. Victims of a crime as heinous as rape, cannot be expected to act within reason or in accordance with society’s
expectations. It is unreasonable to demand a standard rational reaction to an irrational experience, especially from a young
In Criminal Case No. 04–1557–CFM or the December 2003 incident, Pareja was charged and convicted of the crime of rape
victim. One cannot be expected to act as usual in an unfamiliar situation as it is impossible to predict the workings of a
by sexual assault. The enactment of Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti–Rape Law of 1997, revolutionized the concept of
human mind placed under emotional stress. Moreover, it is wrong to say that there is a standard reaction or behavior among
rape with the recognition of sexual violence on “sex–related” orifices other than a woman’s organ is included in the crime of
victims of the crime of rape since each of them had to cope with different circumstances. 39
rape; and the crime’s expansion to cover gender–free rape. “The transformation mainly consisted of the reclassification of
rape as a crime against persons and the introduction of rape by ‘sexual assault’ as differentiated from the traditional ‘rape
Likewise, AAA’s delay in reporting the incidents to her mother or the proper authorities is insignificant and does not affect
through carnal knowledge’ or ‘rape through sexual intercourse.’”44 Republic Act No. 8353 amended Article 335, the
the veracity of her charges. It should be remembered that Pareja threatened to kill her if she told anyone of the
provision on rape in the Revised Penal Code and incorporated therein Article 266–A which reads:
incidents. In People v. Ogarte,40 we explained why a rape victim’s deferral in reporting the crime does not equate to
falsification of the accusation, to wit: Article 266–A. Rape, When and How Committed. – Rape is committed –
The failure of complainant to disclose her defilement without loss of time to persons close to her or to report the matter to
the authorities does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually molested and that her charges against the 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
accused are all baseless, untrue and fabricated. Delay in prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a fabricated
charge. Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapists. They prefer to bear the ignominy
and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders’ making good their threats to kill or hurt their
victims. (Citation omitted.) a) Through force, threat or intimidation;

b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious,

Medical examination
not indispensable c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;

d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
Pareja avers that the Medico–Legal Report indicating that there is evidence of blunt force or penetrating trauma upon circumstances mentioned above be present;
examination of AAA’s hymen, “cannot be given any significance, as it failed to indicate how and when the said signs of
physical trauma were inflicted.” Furthermore, Pareja said, the findings that AAA’s hymen sustained trauma cannot be
utilized as evidence against him as the alleged sexual abuse that occurred in December, was not by penetration of the
vagina.41 2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual
assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital
This Court has time and again held that an accused can be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole testimony of the or anal orifice of another person.
victim. In People v. Colorado,42 we said:

[A] medical certificate is not necessary to prove the commission of rape, as even a medical examination of the victim is not Thus, under the new provision, rape can be committed in two ways:
indispensable in a prosecution for rape. Expert testimony is merely corroborative in character and not essential to
conviction. x x x. 1. Article 266–A paragraph 1 refers to Rape through sexual intercourse, also known as “organ rape” or “penile
rape.” 45 The central element in rape through sexual intercourse is carnal knowledge, which must be proven beyond the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former
reasonable doubt.46 constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.

2. Article 266–A paragraph 2 refers to rape by sexual assault, also called “instrument or object rape,” or “gender–free
rape.”47 It must be attended by any of the circumstances enumerated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 1. 48 Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. — Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex,
In People v. Abulon,49 this Court differentiated the two modes of committing rape as follows:
under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prisión correccional.

The elements of the above crime are as follows:

(1) In the first mode, the offender is always a man, while in the second, the offender may be a man or a woman;

(1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;

(2) In the first mode, the offended party is always a woman, while in the second, the offended party may be a man or a
woman;

(2) That it is done under any of the following circumstances:

(3) In the first mode, rape is committed through penile penetration of the vagina, while the second is committed by
inserting the penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal
orifice of another person; and a. By using force or intimidation; or

(4) The penalty for rape under the first mode is higher than that under the second. b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or

Under Article 266–A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, rape by sexual assault is “[b]y any person who,
under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis c. When the offended party is under 12 years of age; and
into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.”

AAA positively and consistently stated that Pareja, in December 2003, inserted his penis into her anus. While she may not (3) That the offended party is another person of either sex.53 (Citation omitted.)
have been certain about the details of the February 2004 incident, she was positive that Pareja had anal sex with her in
December 2003, thus, clearly establishing the occurrence of rape by sexual assault. In other words, her testimony on this
account was, as the Court of Appeals found, clear, positive, and probable. 50
Clearly, the above–mentioned elements are present in the December 2003 incident, and were sufficiently established during
However, since the charge in the Information for the December 2003 incident is rape through carnal knowledge, Pareja trial. Thus, even though the crime charged against Pareja was for rape through carnal knowledge, he can be convicted of the
cannot be found guilty of rape by sexual assault even though it was proven during trial. This is due to the material crime of acts of lasciviousness without violating any of his constitutional rights because said crime is included in the crime
differences and substantial distinctions between the two modes of rape; thus, the first mode is not necessarily included in the of rape.54
second, and vice–versa. Consequently, to convict Pareja of rape by sexual assault when what he was charged with was rape
through carnal knowledge, would be to violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the Nonetheless, the Court takes this case as an opportunity to remind the State, the People of the Philippines, as represented by
accusation against him.51 the public prosecutor, to exert more diligence in crafting the Information, which contains the charge against an accused. The
primary duty of a lawyer in public prosecution is to see that justice is done 55 – to the State, that its penal laws are not broken
Nevertheless, Pareja may be convicted of the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness under the variance doctrine embodied in and order maintained; to the victim, that his or her rights are vindicated; and to the offender, that he is justly punished for his
Section 4, in relation to Section 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure,52 to wit: crime. A faulty and defective Information, such as that in Criminal Case No. 04–1556–CFM, does not render full justice to
the State, the offended party, and even the offender. Thus, the public prosecutor should always see to it that the Information
SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. – When there is a variance between the offense charged is accurate and appropriate.
in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense
proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense Criminal Case No. 04–1556–CFM:
charged which is included in the offense proved. The February 2004 Incident

SEC. 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. – An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved It is manifest that the RTC carefully weighed all the evidence presented by the prosecution against Pareja, especially AAA’s
when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute testimony. In its scrutiny, the RTC found AAA’s declaration on the rape in the December 2003 incident credible enough to
result in a conviction, albeit this Court had to modify it as explained above. However, it did not find that the same level of
proof, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt, was fully satisfied by the prosecution in its charge of attempted rape and a second two (2) indeterminate prison terms of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 4 years and 2 months of prisión
count of rape against Pareja. In Criminal Case No. 04–1556–CFM, or the February 2004 incident, the RTC considered correccional, as maximum; and is ORDERED to pay the victim, AAA, P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral
AAA’s confusion as to whether or not she was actually penetrated by Pareja, and eventually resolved the matter in Pareja’s damages, and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each count of acts of lasciviousness, all with interest at the rate of
favor. 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment.
SO ORDERED.
This Court agrees with such findings. AAA, in her Sinumpaang Salaysay,56 stated that aside from sucking her breasts,
Pareja also inserted his finger in her vagina. However, she was not able to give a clear and convincing account of such
insertion during her testimony. Despite being repeatedly asked by the prosecutor as to what followed after her breasts were
sucked, AAA failed to testify, in open court, that Pareja also inserted his finger in her vagina. Moreover, later on, she added
that Pareja inserted his penis in her vagina during that incident. Thus, because of the material omissions and inconsistencies,
Pareja cannot be convicted of rape in the February 2004 incident. Nonetheless, Pareja’s acts of placing himself on top of ACCUSED FAILS TO APPEAR FOR PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT:
AAA and sucking her breasts, fall under the crime of acts of lasciviousness, which, as we have discussed above, is included
in the crime of rape.
THIRD DIVISION
Verily, AAA was again positive and consistent in her account of how Pareja sucked both her breasts in the February 2004
incident. Thus, Pareja was correctly convicted by the courts a quo of the crime of acts of lasciviousness. [G.R. No. 167710. June 5, 2009.]
Defense of Denial PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. JOVEN DE GRANO, ARMANDO DE GRANO, DOMINGO
and Improper Motive LANDICHO and ESTANISLAO LACABA, respondents.

Pareja sought to escape liability by denying the charges against him, coupled with the attribution of ill motive against DECISION
AAA. He claims that AAA filed these cases against him because she was angry that he caused her parents’
separation. Pareja added that these cases were initiated by AAA’s father, as revenge against him. 57 PERALTA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul and set aside the
Such contention is untenable. “AAA’s credibility cannot be diminished or tainted by such imputation of ill motives. It is Resolutions[1] dated January 25, 2005 and April 5, 2005, issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 88160
highly unthinkable for the victim to falsely accuse her father solely by reason of ill motives or grudge.” 58 Furthermore,
motives such as resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a The antecedents are as follows:
minor rape victim.59 In People v. Manuel,60 we held:
On November 28, 1991, an Information for murder committed against Emmanuel Mendoza was filed with the Regional
Evidently, no woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of defloration, allow examination of her private parts and Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Tanauan, Batangas, against Joven de Grano (Joven), Armando de Grano (Armando), and
subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the Estanislao Lacaba (Estanislao), together with their co-accused Leonides Landicho (Leonides), Domingo Landicho
wrong done to her being. It is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child–victims are given full weight and credit, since (Domingo), and Leonardo Genil (Leonardo), who were at-large.[2] It was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2730, the pertinent
when a woman or a girl–child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was portion of which reads:
indeed committed.
That on April 21, 1991, between 9:00 oclock and 10:00 oclock in the evening, in Barangay Balakilong, [M]unicipality of
Laurel, [P]rovince of Batangas, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, all the above named accused, conspiring,
Liability for Acts of Lasciviousness confederating, and helping one another, motivated by common design and intent to kill, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously, and by means of treachery and with evident premeditation, shoot EMMANUEL MENDOZA
The penalty for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code is prisión correccional in its full with firearms, inflicting upon him eight gunshot wounds and causing his death thereby, thus committing the crime of
range. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,61 the minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the full MURDER to the damage and prejudice of his heirs in the amount as the Honorable Court shall determine.[3]
range of the penalty next lower in degree,62 i.e., arresto mayor, which ranges from 1 month and 1 day to 6 months.63 The
maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall come from the proper penalty64 that could be imposed under the Revised Penal Duly arraigned, Joven, Armando, and Estanislao pleaded not guilty to the crime as charged; while their co-accused
Code for Acts of Lasciviousness,65 which, in this case, absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, is the medium Leonides, Leonardo, and Domingo remained at-large. Thereafter, respondents filed a motion for bail contending that the
period of prisión correccional, ranging from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months. 66 prosecutions evidence was not strong.[4]

In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the Court modifies the award of damages as follows: P20,000.00 as civil Meanwhile, considering that one of the accused was the incumbent Mayor of Laurel, Batangas at the time when the crime
indemnity;67 P30,000.00 as moral damages; and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages,68 for each count of acts of was committed, Senior State Prosecutor Hernani T. Barrios moved that the venue be transferred from the RTC, Branch 6,
lasciviousness. All amounts shall bear legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment. Tanauan, Batangas to any RTC in Manila. Consequently, the case was transferred to the RTC Manila for re-raffling amongst
its Branches. The case was re-docketed as Criminal Case No. 93-129988 and was initially re-raffled to Branches 6, 9, and 11
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA–G.R. CR.–H.C. No. 03794 is before being finally raffled to Branch 27, RTC, Manila.[5]
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. We find accused–appellant Bernabe Pareja y Cruz GUILTY of two counts of
Before transferring the case to the RTC, Branch 27, Manila, the trial court deferred the resolution of respondents motion for
Acts of Lasciviousness, defined and penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. He is sentenced to
bail and allowed the prosecution to present evidence. Thereafter, the hearing of the application for bail ensued, wherein the
prosecution presented Teresita and Dr. Leonardo Salvador. After finding that the prosecutions evidence to prove treachery Acting on respondents motion for reconsideration, the RTC issued an Order [12] dated April 15, 2004 modifying its earlier
and evident premeditation was not strong, the RTC, Branch 11, Manila, granted respondents motion for bail. A motion for decision by acquitting Joven and Armando, and downgrading the conviction of Domingo and Estanislao from murder to
reconsideration was filed, but it was denied.[6] homicide. The decretal portion of the Order reads:

The prosecution then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 41110, which was
denied. Aggrieved, they sought recourse before this Court in G.R. No. 129604. In a Resolution dated July 12, 1999, this
Court granted the petition and set aside the decision of the CA together with the Order of the RTC granting bail to the WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court modifies its decision and finds accused DOMINGO
respondents. The RTC was also ordered to immediately issue a warrant of arrest against the accused. The resolution was also LANDICHO and ESTANISLAO LACABA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, as principal of the crime
qualified to be immediately executory.[7] As a result, Estanislao was re-arrested, but Joven and Armando were not.[8] of Homicide, and in default of any modifying circumstance, sentences them to an indeterminate prison term of SIX (6)
YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor, as minimum, to TWELVE YEARS [and] ONE DAY of Reclusion Temporal,
However, upon respondents motion for reconsideration, this Court, in a Resolution dated September 4, 2001, resolved to as maximum. Said accused shall be credited with the full period of their preventive imprisonment pursuant to B.P. Blg. 85.
remand the case to the RTC. We noted that, in view of the transmittal of the records of the case to this Court in connection
with the petition, the trial court deferred the rendition of its decision. Consequently, the case was remanded to the RTC for Accused ARMANDO DE GRANO and JOVEN DE GRANO are hereby ACQUITTED on the basis of reasonable
further proceedings, including the rendition of its decision on the merits. doubt. They are likewise declared free of any civil liability.

After the presentation of the parties respective sets of evidence, the RTC rendered a Decision [9] dated April 25, 2002, finding To the extent herein altered or modified, the Decision dated April 25, 2002 stands.
several accused guilty of the offense as charged, the dispositive portion of which reads:
SO ORDERED.[13]
WHEREFORE, CONSIDERING ALL THE FOREGOING, this Court finds the accused JOVEN DE GRANO, ARMANDO
Estanislao filed a Notice of Appeal, while the prosecution sought reconsideration of the Order arguing that:
DE GRANO, DOMINGO LANDICHO and ESTANISLAO LACABA, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
MURDER, qualified by treachery, and there being no modifying circumstance attendant, hereby sentences them to suffer the 1. There was absolutely no basis for this Court to have taken cognizance of the Joint Motion for Reconsideration dated
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, and to indemnify the heirs of Emmanuel Mendoza the sum of P50,000.00 and to pay the May 8, 2002, citing Sec. 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court.
costs.
2. The testimony of Teresita Duran deserves credence. The delay in the taking of Ms. Durans written statement of the
The case as against accused Leonides Landicho and Leonardo Genil is hereby sent to the files or archived cases to be events she witnessed is understandable considering that Joven de Grano was the mayor of the municipality where the crime
revived as soon as said accused are apprehended. was committed and that another accused, Estanislao Lacaba, was a policeman in the same municipality.
Let alias warrants of arrest be issued against accused Leonardo Genil and Leonides Landicho. 3. The crime committed is murder.
Only Estanislao was present at the promulgation despite due notice to the other respondents. 4. Accused Armando de Grano and Joven de Grano participated in the conspiracy.
Respondents, thru counsel, then filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration dated May 8, 2002, praying that the Decision dated On September 28, 2004, the RTC issued an Order[14] denying the motion and giving due course to Estanislaos notice of
April 25, 2002 be reconsidered and set aside and a new one be entered acquitting them based on the following grounds, to appeal.
wit:
Petitioner, thru Assistant City Prosecutor Cesar Glorioso of the Office of the Manila City Prosecutor, with the assistance of
1. The Honorable Court erred in basing the decision of conviction of all accused solely on the biased, uncorroborated and private prosecutor Atty. Michael E. David, filed a Petition[15] for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the
baseless testimony of Teresita Duran, the common-law wife of the victim; CA arguing that:
2. The Honorable Court erred in not giving exculpatory weight to the evidence adduced by the defense, which was amply (a) the private respondents, having deliberately evaded arrest after being denied bail and deliberately failing to attend
corroborated on material points; the promulgation of the Decision despite due notice, lost the right to move for reconsideration of their conviction; and
3. The Honorable Court erred in not finding that the failure of the prosecution to present rebuttal evidence renders the (b) the grounds relied upon by respondent RTC in modifying its Decision are utterly erroneous.[16]
position of the defense unrebutted;
Petitioner alleged that it had no other plain, adequate, and speedy remedy, considering that the State could not appeal a
4. The Honorable Court erred in adopting conditional or preliminary finding of treachery of the Supreme Court in its judgment of acquittal. However, by way of exception, a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition
Resolution dated July 12, 1999; and for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court upon a showing by the petitioner that the lower court, in acquitting the
accused, committed not only reversible errors of judgment, but also grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
5. The Honorable Court erred in rendering a verdict [sic] of conviction despite the fact that the guilt of all the accused were
jurisdiction, or a denial of due process, thus rendering the assailed judgment void. Consequently, the accused cannot be
not proven beyond reasonable doubt.[10]
considered at risk of double jeopardy.[17]
In its Opposition, the prosecution pointed out that while the accused jointly moved for the reconsideration of the decision, all
Respondent De Grano filed a Motion to Dismiss,[18] arguing that the verification and certification portion of the petition was
of them, except Estanislao, were at-large. Having opted to become fugitives and be beyond the judicial ambit, they lost their
flawed, since it was signed only by counsel and not by the aggrieved party. Also, the petition did not contain the conformity
right to file such motion for reconsideration and to ask for whatever relief from the court. [11]
of the Solicitor General.[19]
On January 31, 2005, petitioner, through the private prosecutor, filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. [20] Petitioner WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR AND GRAVE ABUSE OF
explained that, for lack of material time, it failed to secure the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) when DISCRETION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ON THE GROUND THAT THE
it filed the petition, but it would nevertheless obtain it. A day after filing the petition, the private prosecutor sought the OSGs VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION ATTACHED TO THE PETITION WAS SIGNED BY THE PRIVATE
conformity in a letter[21] dated January 12, 2005. The OSG, in turn, informed the private prosecutor that rather than affixing COUNSEL AND NOT BY THE OFFENDED PARTY.[30]
its belated conformity, it would rather await the initial resolution of the CA. [22] Also, so as not to preempt the action of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) on the case, the OSG instructed the private prosecutor to secure the necessary endorsement Petitioner, through the Solicitor General, argues that, except for Estanislao, none of the respondents appeared at the
from the DOJ for it to pursue the case. Anent the verification and certification of the petition having been signed by the promulgation of the Decision. Neither did they surrender after promulgation of the judgment of conviction, nor filed a
private prosecutor, petitioner explained that private complainant Teresita was in fear for her life as a result of the acquittal of motion for leave to avail themselves of the judicial remedies against the decision, stating the reasons for their absence. The
former Mayor Joven de Grano, but she was willing to certify the petition should she be given ample time to travel to trial court thus had no authority to take cognizance of the joint motion for reconsideration filed by the respondents as stated
Manila.[23] in Section 6, Rule 120 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. As such, the RTC committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Having been issued without jurisdiction, the Order dated April 15,
However, in a Resolution[24] dated January 25, 2005, which was received by the petitioner on the same day it filed its 2004 is void. Consequently, no double jeopardy attached to such void Order. The CA, therefore, committed reversible error
Opposition or on January 31, 2005, the petition was dismissed outright by the CA on the grounds that it was not filed by the when it dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground of double jeopardy.[31]
OSG and that the assailed Orders were only photocopies and not certified true copies. The dispositive portion of the
Resolution reads: Petitioner also contends that, with the endorsement of the DOJ and the letter of the OSG manifesting its intention to pursue
the petition, the OSG had in fact conformed to the filing of the petition and agreed to pursue the same. Had the CA given the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this petition is hereby OUTRIGHTLY DISMISSED. OSG ample time to file the necessary pleading, the petition would not have been dismissed for the reason that it was filed by
the said office.[32]
Petitioner timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration.[25] In addition to the justifications it raised in its earlier Opposition to
the Motion to Dismiss, petitioner argued that the petition was not only signed by the private prosecutor, it was also signed by With respect to the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, petitioner invokes a liberal application of the Rules
the prosecutor who represented the petitioner in the criminal proceedings before the trial court. Petitioner also maintains that for private complainants failure to personally sign it. Petitioner maintains that out of extreme fear arising from the
the certified true copies of the assailed Orders were accidentally attached to its file copy instead of the one it submitted. To unexpected acquittal of Joven, private complainant was reluctant to travel to Manila. After she was taken out of the witness
rectify the mistake, it attached the certified true copies of the assailed Orders. [26] This was opposed by the respondents in protection program, she took refuge in the Visayas and she was there at the time her signature was required. Since the period
their Comment/Opposition to Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.[27] for filing the petition for certiorari was about to lapse, and it could not be filed without the verification and certification of
non-forum shopping, the private prosecutor was left with no option but so sign it, instead of allowing the deadline to pass
Meanwhile, in its 1st Indorsement[28] dated March 15, 2005, DOJ Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez, endorsed the petition filed by without filing the petition.[33]
the Assistant City Prosecutor, with the assistance of the private prosecutor, to the Solicitor General for his conformity.
Moreover, petitioner maintains that the OSG has the authority to sign the verification and certification of the present
On April 5, 2005, the CA issued a Resolution[29] denying the motion, thus: petition, because the real party-in-interest is the OSG itself as the representative of the State.[34]
WHEREFORE, petitioners motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED. On their part, respondents contend that the petition for certiorari questioning the order of acquittal is not allowed and is
contrary to the principle of double jeopardy. Respondents argue that, contrary to the OSGs contention, respondents Joven
In denying the motion, the CA opined that the rule on double jeopardy prohibits the state from appealing or filing a petition
and Domingos absence during the promulgation of the Decision dated April 25, 2002 did not deprive the trial court of its
for review of a judgment of acquittal that was based on the merits of the case. If there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom, if
authority to resolve their Joint Motion for Reconsideration, considering that one of the accused, Estanislao, was present
it will not put the accused in double jeopardy, on the criminal aspect, may be undertaken only by the State through the
during the promulgation.[35]
Solicitor General. It added that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may be filed by the
person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or complainant. Moreover, Joven, Armando, and Domingo maintain that while they were not present during the promulgation of the RTC Decision,
the records reveal that the petition was not filed in the name of the offended party; and worse, the verification and Estanislao, who was under police custody, attended the promulgation of the said Decision. Thus, when they filed their Joint
certification of non-forum shopping attached to the petition was signed not by the private offended party, but by her Motion for Reconsideration, which included that of Estanislao, the RTC was not deprived of its authority to resolve the joint
counsel. Notwithstanding the efforts exerted by the petitioner to secure the confirmation of the OSG and the endorsement of motion.[36]
the DOJ, there is no showing of any subsequent participation of the OSG in the case.
Respondents insist that the CA properly dismissed the petition for certiorari, as it was not instituted by the OSG on behalf of
Hence, the petition raising the following issues: the People of the Philippines, and that the verification and certification portion thereof was not signed by private
complainant Teresita.[37]

Respondents also argue that the petition for certiorari before this Court should be dismissed, since the verification and
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR AND GRAVE ABUSE OF
certification thereof were signed by a solicitor of the OSG, not private complainant.
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI ON THE GROUND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY. The petition is meritorious.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR AND GRAVE ABUSE OF Before considering the merits of the petition, we will first address the technical objections raised by respondents.
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI FOR NOT HAVING BEEN FILED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL NOR IN As regards the issue of the signatory of the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, a liberal application of the
THE NAME OF THE OFFENDED PARTY. Rules should be applied to the present case.
The purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations in the petition have been made in good present petition. Moreover, the OSG filed a Comment[51] on respondents Motion for Reconsideration.[52] Thus, any doubt
faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative. This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, regarding the endorsement, conformity, and participation of the OSG in the petitions is dispelled.
and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective. [38] Truly, verification is only a formal, not a
jurisdictional, requirement. Hence, it was sufficient that the private prosecutor signed the verification. Now on the substantive aspect.

With respect to the certification of non-forum shopping, it has been held that the certification requirement is rooted in the A peculiar situation exists in the instant case. Petitioner has sought recourse before the CA, via a petition
principle that a party-litigant shall not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora, as this practice is for certiorari under Rule 65, from an Order of the trial court drastically modifying its earlier findings convicting the
detrimental to an orderly judicial procedure.[39] However, this Court has relaxed, under justifiable circumstances, the rule respondents of the crime of murder, by acquitting Joven and Armando, and downgrading the convictions of their co-accused
requiring the submission of such certification considering that although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional. [40] Not being from murder to homicide; this, notwithstanding that all the accused, except Estanislao Lacaba, failed to personally appear at
jurisdictional, it can be relaxed under the rule of substantial compliance. the promulgation of the Decision despite due notice thereof.

In Donato v. Court of Appeals[41] and Wee v. Galvez,[42] the Court noted that the petitioners were already in the United Petitioner contends that its petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the CA was the proper remedy,
States; thus, the signing of the certification by their authorized representatives was deemed sufficient compliance with the since the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it entertained the Joint
Rules. In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals,[43] the Court upheld substantial justice and ruled that the failure of the parties to sign Motion for Reconsideration with respect to Armando and Joven despite the fact that they had not regained their standing in
the certification may be overlooked, as the parties case was meritorious. In Torres v. Specialized Packaging and court.
Development Corporation,[44] the Court also found, among other reasons, that the extreme difficulty to secure all the
Petitioners recourse to the CA was correct.
required signatures and the apparent merits of the substantive aspects of the case constitute compelling reasons for allowing
the petition. A writ of certiorari is warranted when (1) any tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (2) there is no appeal, nor any
In Ortiz v. Court of Appeals[45] and similar rulings, the following has always been pointed out:
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. [53] An act of a court or tribunal may be considered as grave
The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed abuse of discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of
the same. To merit the Courts consideration, petitioners here must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, or to a virtual
certification. The petitioners must convince the court that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of
administration of justice. passion or hostility.[54]

Thus, petitioners need only show that there was reasonable cause for the failure to sign the certification against forum By way of exception, a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
shopping, and that the outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of justice.[46] the Rules of Court, but only upon a clear showing by the petitioner that the lower court, in acquitting the accused, committed
not merely reversible errors of judgment but also grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or to
We find that the particular circumstances of this case advance valid reasons for private complainants failure to sign the a denial of due process, thus rendering the assailed judgment void. [55] In which event, the accused cannot be considered at
certification. As pointed out in the petition, it was out of extreme fear that private complainant failed to personally sign the risk of double jeopardy the revered constitutional safeguard against exposing the accused to the risk of answering twice for
certification. It is to be noted that when Armando and Joven were acquitted, Teresita was already out of the witness the same offense.
protection program and was in hiding in the Visayas. As such, she could not travel to Manila to personally sign the
petition. Moreover, as maintained by the petitioner, since the period for filing the petition for certiorari was about to lapse, Double jeopardy has the following essential elements: (1) the accused is charged under a complaint or an information
the private prosecutor was left with no option but to sign the verification and certification, instead of allowing the period to sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and
file the petition to pass without it being filed. A relaxation of the procedural rules, considering the particular circumstances, he has pleaded; and (4) he is convicted or acquitted, or the case is dismissed without his express consent. [56]
is justified. The requirement was thus substantially complied with.
Although this Court does not absolutely preclude the availment of the remedy of certiorari to correct an erroneous acquittal,
As summarized in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals,[47] when a strict and literal application of the rules on the petitioner must clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the lower court blatantly abused its authority to a point so
non-forum shopping and verification would result in a patent denial of substantial justice, they may be liberally grave and so severe as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.[57]
construed. An unforgiving application of the pertinent provisions of the Rules will not be given premium if it would impede
Under English common law, exceptions to the pleas of prior conviction or acquittal existed where the trial court lacked
rather than serve the best interests of justice in the light of the prevailing circumstances in the case under consideration.
jurisdiction, the theory being that a defendant before such a court was not actually placed in jeopardy. [58] Hence, any
We reiterate our holding in City Warden of the Manila City Jail v. Estrella,[48] that the signature of the Solicitor General on acquittal or conviction before a court having no jurisdiction would not violate the principle of double jeopardy since it failed
the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in a petition before the CA or with this Court is substantial to attach in the first place.
compliance with the requirement under the Rules, considering that the OSG is the legal representative of the Government of
Section 14(2),[59] Article III of the Constitution, authorizing trials in absentia, allows the accused to be absent at the trial but
the Republic of the Philippines and its agencies and instrumentalities; more so, in a criminal case where the People or the
not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt; (b) during trial,
State is the real party-in-interest and is the aggrieved party.[49]
whenever necessary for identification purposes; and (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in
Also, respondents contention that there is no showing of any subsequent participation of the OSG in the petition before the which case, the accused may appear by counsel or representative. At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is required
CA does not hold water. In the letter dated January 18, 2004, the OSG instructed the private prosecutor to secure the and cannot be waived.[60]
necessary endorsement from the DOJ for it to pursue the case. In its 1st Indorsement dated March 15, 2005, DOJ Secretary
Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Rules applicable at the time the Decision was
Raul M. Gonzalez, endorsed the petition to the Solicitor General for his conformity. When the CA denied petitioners Motion
promulgated, provides:
for Reconsideration for its outright dismissal of the petition, the OSG filed motions[50] for extension of time to file the
Section 6. Promulgation of judgment. The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence of one party or the other.[65] The sole office of a writ
judge of the court in which it was rendered. However, if the conviction is for a light offense the judgment may be of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to
pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. When the judge is absent or outside the province or city, the lack of jurisdiction, and does not include a review of the RTCs evaluation of the evidence and the factual findings based
judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court. thereon.[66]

If the accused is confined or detained in another province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge True, were it not for the procedural lapses of the RTC and its blatant disregard of the Rules, the finality of respondents
of the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the place of confinement or detention upon request of the court which acquittal and their co-accuseds conviction of homicide instead of murder would have been barred by the rule on double
rendered the judgment. The court promulgating the judgment shall have authority to accept the notice of appeal and to jeopardy.
approve the bail bond pending appeal; provided, that if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the
nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed and resolved by the appellate We may tolerate an erroneous acquittal borne from an attempt to protect the innocent or from an attempt to uphold the
court. accuseds treasured right to a fair trial, but when these concerns are not evident, an erroneous acquittal is a source of
substantial dismay and warrants this Courts corrective action via a special writ of error.
The proper clerk of court shall give notice to the accused, personally or through his bondsman or warden and counsel,
requiring him to be present at the promulgation of the decision. If the accused was tried in absentia because he jumped bail Moreover, although the CA dismissed the appeal filed before it, the RTC Judge cannot hide behind such fact considering
or escaped from prison, the notice to him shall be served at his last known address. that the dismissal of the appeal was not based on the validity of the assailed Order of the RTC, but was based on technical
rules and the rule against double jeopardy.
In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall
be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru It is to be stressed that judges are dutybound to have more than a cursory acquaintance with laws and jurisprudence. Failure
his counsel. to follow basic legal commands constitutes gross ignorance of the law from which no one may be excused, not even a
judge.[67] The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the competence.[68] It bears stressing that competence is one of the marks of a good judge. When a judge displays an utter lack
remedies available in these Rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest.Within fifteen (15) days from of familiarity with the Rules, he erodes the publics confidence in the competence of our courts. Such is gross ignorance of
promulgation of judgment however, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these the law. Having accepted the exalted position of a judge, he/she owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient in the
remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for law.[69]
a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice. [61]
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated January 25, 2005 and April 5, 2005, issued by the Court
Thus, the accused who failed to appear without justifiable cause shall lose the remedies available in the Rules against the of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88160, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The pertinent portions of the Order dated April
judgment. However, within 15 days from promulgation of judgment, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave 15, 2004 issued by the Regional Trial Court, convicting Domingo Landicho of the crime of Homicide and acquitting
of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state in his motion the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation, Armando de Grano and Joven de Grano, are ANNULLED and DELETED. In all other aspects, the Order stands.
and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within 15 days
from notice.[62] To the extent herein altered or modified, the pertinent portions of the Decision dated April 25, 2002 of the Regional Trial
Court are REINSTATED.
When the Decision dated April 25, 2002 was promulgated, only Estanislao Lacaba was present. Subsequently thereafter,
without surrendering and explaining the reasons for their absence, Joven, Armando, and Domingo joined Estanislao in their The Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to INVESTIGATE Judge Teresa P. Soriaso for possible violation/s
Joint Motion for Reconsideration. In blatant disregard of the Rules, the RTC not only failed to cause the arrest of the of the law and/or the Code of Judicial Conduct in issuing the Order dated April 15, 2004 in Criminal Case No. 93-129988.
respondents who were at large, it also took cognizance of the joint motion.
SO ORDERED.
The RTC clearly exceeded its jurisdiction when it entertained the joint Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the
respondents who were at large. It should have considered the joint motion as a motion for reconsideration that was solely
filed by Estanislao. Being at large, Joven and Domingo have not regained their standing in court. Once an accused jumps
bail or flees to a foreign country, or escapes from prison or confinement, he loses his standing in court; and unless he NEW TRIAL:
surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court.[63]
FIRST DIVISION
Thus, Joven, Armando, and Domingo, were not placed in double jeopardy because, from the very beginning, the lower
[G.R. No. 145336. February 20, 2013.]
tribunal had acted without jurisdiction. Verily, any ruling issued without jurisdiction is, in legal contemplation, necessarily
null and id and does not exist. In criminal cases, it cannot be the source of an acquittal.[64] REYNANTE TADEJA, RICKY TADEJA, RICARDO TADEJA and FERDINAND TADEJA, petitioners, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
However, with respect to Estanislao, the RTC committed no reversible error when it entertained the Motion for
Reconsideration. He was in custody and was present at the promulgation of the judgment. Hence, the RTC never lost DECISION
jurisdiction over his person. Consequently, the RTCs ruling downgrading his conviction from murder to homicide
stands. For Estanislao, and for him alone, the proscription against double jeopardy applies. GARCIA, J.:
Factual matters cannot be inquired into by this Court in a certiorari proceeding. We can no longer be tasked to go over the In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioners Reynante, Ricky, Ricardo and Ferdinand, all
proofs presented by the parties and analyze, assess and weigh them again to ascertain if the trial court was correct in surnamed Tadeja, seek the reversal and setting aside of the Decision[1] dated March 8, 2000 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 21740, as reiterated in its Resolution[2] of September 25, 2000, affirming an earlier decision of the acquitting the brothers Russel and Robenson in Criminal Case No. Z-815, which was accordingly dismissed. We quote the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro, Branch 44, which found them guilty of the crime of decretal portion of the trial courts decision:
homicide.
WHEREFORE, all the accused, Reynante Ferdinand, Plaridel, Ricardo and Ricky, all surnamed Tadeja are found guilty
The case traces its formal beginning from an Information filed with the RTC of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro charging beyond reasonable doubt and are convicted of Homicide defined and penalized under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code,
petitioners, along with Plaridel Tadeja, with the crime of homicide for the killing of one Ruben Bernardo on the night and are sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum to Fourteen
of May 3, 1994. Docketed as Criminal Case No. Z-814 and raffled to Branch 44 of the court, a companion case Criminal (14) years, Eight (8) months and One (10) day of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum; to indemnify the heirs of the offended
Case No. Z-815 for frustrated homicide was also lodged in the same branch of the court at the instance and on the complaint party in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS, and to pay the costs.
of petitioner Reynante Tadeja against the two sons, Russel and Robenson, of Ruben Bernardo, the victim in Criminal Case
No. Z-814. So Ordered.[3]

On arraignment, all the accused in the two (2) related cases entered a plea of Not Guilty. With all of them waiving the pre- With the exception of Plaridel Tadeja, the Tadejas brothers, Reynante, Ricky, Ricardo and Ferdinand, went on appeal to the
trial, the cases were tried jointly. CA claiming that despite the joint trial of the two (2) cases, the trial court failed to consider the testimonies of the witnesses
presented in Criminal Case No. Z-815, more particularly, the testimonies of Maria Regina Cortuna and Leticia Bernardo. It
The incidents leading to the proceedings before the trial court occurred on the night of May 3, 1994 at a time when Barangay is their posture that the testimonies of said two (2) witnesses bare a major inconsistency with the story of the prosecution in
Talabaan in Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro was then celebrating its annual barrio fiesta with a dance and Criminal Case No. Z-814 and could have entitled them to an acquittal in said case.
coronation. Sadly, the otherwise festive night was marred by a bloody incident that cost the life of Ruben Bernardo, about
which the parties gave conflicting versions. Not finding in the records of the cases any trace of the testimonies of witnesses Maria Regina Cortuna and Leticia Bernardo,
the CA, in the herein assailed Decision dated March 8, 2000, dismissed the Tadejas appeal.
During the joint trial, the prosecution presented two witnesses, namely: Jacinta del Fierro and Maria Elena Bernardo-
Almaria, both relatives of the fatality, Ruben Bernardo.Corroborating each others testimony, both testified that in the In their motion for reconsideration, the Tadejas attached the missing transcripts of stenographic notes relative to the
evening of that fateful night, while watching together the dance that was then going on, they saw the Tadejas kill the victim testimonies of the two (2) witnesses aforementioned which the trial court supposedly failed to consider. Nonetheless, the
Ruben Bernardo at around twelve oclock midnight. According to both, the Tadejas, armed with bolos and sanggots, hacked CA, in its Resolution of September 25, 2000, denied the motion, saying that there was nothing of substance in the aforesaid
the victim to death. Explaining the injuries allegedly sustained by Reynante Tadeja, complainant in the Information for transcripts of stenographic notes to adversely affect the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in Criminal Case
frustrated homicide (Crim. Case No. Z-815), both witnesses declared that those injuries were sustained by Reynante when No. Z-814 and to alter its previous affirmance of the trial courts judgment of conviction.
he was accidentally hit by his co-accused, Plaridel Tadeja, while the Tadejas were ganging up on Ruben.
Undaunted, the Tadeja brothers are now with this Court via the present recourse raising the following issues:
For their part, the Tadejas each testified on their own behalves. They denied the inculpatory allegations against them in
1. Whether the CA erred in failing to reconcile the testimonies of the witnesses for the Bernardos, which
Criminal Case No. Z-814 and provided an altogether different account of what supposedly transpired on the night in
diametrically contradicted each other on material and substantial matters;
question. Three of the Tadejas Ferdinand, Ricky and Ricardo interposed alibi as their defense. Several witnesses were
presented by the Tadejas in an effort to corroborate their tale. 2. Whether the CA erred in giving credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Maria Elena Bernardo
Almaria and Jacinta del Fierro;
Elaborating on their defense of alibi, Ferdinand, Ricky and Ricardo claimed that they were at home watching betamax with
their first cousin Tomas Damasco up to around 10:30 or 11:00 oclock of that fateful night. Thereafter, they went to bed and 3. Whether the CA erred in not appreciating petitioner's defense of alibi; and
slept. Later, at about 1:00 oclock in the early morning, they were awakened by their sister Maritess Alfaro who arrived home
and informed them that their brother Reynante had been brought to the hospital. Immediately, the three proceeded to the 4. Whether the CA erred in not acquitting the petitioners on the basis of reasonable doubt
provincial hospital whereat their brother Reynante informed them that he was stabbed by Ruben Bernardo. Corroborating
their account is their sister, Maritess, and cousin, Tomas Damasco. The petition must have to be denied.

For his part, Reynante, the alleged victim of the charge for frustrated homicide in Criminal Case No. Z-815, declared that at While petitioners are correct in asserting that the totality of the evidence in Criminal Cases No. 814 and 815 should have
about 11:00 oclock that same night, he went to the plaza riding a tricycle, to fetch his daughter and two sisters. He testified been taken into consideration because the trial thereof wasconducted jointly, the CA cannot be said to have erred in
that Ruben Bernardo, along with his two sons, Russel and Robenson, chased and wounded him with a knife. rendering the assailed decision and resolution since there was no trace of the missing testimonies in the records.
Furthermore, no matter how anomalous this state of affairs may appear, we agree with the CA in its denial Resolution[4] that
As regards Plaridel Tadeja, this accused declared that it was he who, for no reason at all, was suddenly chased at such testimonies, even if given due consideration, would not alter the trial courts finding of conviction.
around 11:30 oclock that night by Ruben Bernardo, who was then holding a stainless bladed weapon. Plodding on, Plaridel
declared that Ruben was with his two sons, Russel, then armed with a .29 balisong, and Robenson with a bat (panggarote). Petitioners contend that the testimony of defense witness for the Bernardos in Criminal Case No. Z-815, a certain Regina
The father, Ruben Bernardo, allegedly thrusted his knife at him (Plaridel) but missed. Ruben was held by two men whom he Cortuna, runs diametrically opposed to the testimonies of Jacinta del Fierro and Maria Elena Bernardo-Almaria, the
(Plaridel) says he did not see. Later, he learned from one Raymundo Pajayon that Reynante was stabbed. He then went to the prosecution's eye-witnesses in Criminal Case No. Z-814. Petitioners claim that Cortuna's testimony shows that Ruben
hospital that same night and there saw Ruben Bernardo at the emergency room whereat police officer Ronaldo Flores Bernardo was completely alone when found wounded. On this score, petitioners argue that the account of the prosecutions
apprehended him (Plaridel) and brought him to the municipal jail. alleged eye-witnesses, Jacinta del Fierro and Maria Elena Bernardo-Almaria, could not have been true. Unfortunately, after
looking at the portion of Cortuna's testimony which the petitioners have quoted, the Court itself does not see any indication
After the joint hearing, the trial court, finding the prosecutions witnesses against the Tadejas more credible and their account of the alleged contradiction. Nor does a close scrutiny of the complete transcripts of Cortuna's testimony reveal any such
more tenable, came out with its decision convicting the Tadejas of the crime of homicide in Criminal Case No. Z-815 and conflict.
Petitioners lay emphasis on the following excerpts of Cortuna's testimony: For sure, the defense of alibi, especially when corroborated , as here, mainly by relatives and friends of the accused, ought to
be taken with extreme suspicion, precisely because alibi is easy to fabricate and concoct.[10] It cannot prevail over clear,
Q When you returned to the house of your uncle Amado Alfaro, what did you do there? direct and positive identification of the accused. The settled rule is that alibi is
A At that time, before I arrived two (2) meters away from the gate I saw a person leaning to [sic] the fence, sir. the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. [11]
Q When you saw that person leaning to [sic] the fence, what did you do?

A I approached him, sir.

Accordingly, the CA properly rejected the brothers defense of alibi, more so in the light of positive identification by
witnesses who have no motive to falsely testify.
Q When you approached him, were you able to recognize that person?
At bottom, the issues raised by the petitioners are factual in nature. Time and again, the Court has ruled that in cases brought
A When I approached him, I recognized him, Ah si Manong Ruben, sir.[5]
to it from the CA, its review is limited to errors of law allegedly committed by that court.[12] The CA is the final arbiter of
Nowhere in the afore-quoted testimony of Cortuna did she state that Ruben Bernardo was alone. Nor is there any indication questions of fact.[13]
by her that no one else was around to witness the incident.
Nonetheless, in the interest of justice and bearing in mind that the liberty of the petitioners is at stake, the Court has seen fit
Furthermore, petitioners' submission that the testimonies of Jacinta del Fierro and Maria Elena Bernardo-Almaria are hardly to delve into the records of this case, as well as the transcripts of stenographic notes of the testimonies of the witnesses
believable because the two are relatives of the deceased Ruben Bernardo cannot hold water. It is a basic precept that presented before the trial court in the joint trial of Criminal Case No. Z-814 and Criminal Case Z-815. Sadly, after a perusal
relationship of these transcripts, the Court is inclined to agree with the CA that there is, indeed, nothing therein to overcome the positive
testimony of the prosecution's eye-witnesses who were found credible by the trial court.
per se of a witness with the victim of the crime does not necessarily mean that the witness is biased.[6]
Where the issues raised on appeal hinge on the credibility of witnesses, as in this case, the appellate tribunal will accord due
Blood relationship alone does not, by itself, impair a witness credibility. On the contrary, relationship may even respect to the assessment of facts made by the trial court, said court having the best opportunity, not only of receiving
fortify credibility, for it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely point an accusing finger at someone other than the evidence, but also of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. Even after an inspection of the
actual culprit. The earnest desire to seek justice for a dead kin is not served should the witness abandon his conscience and records of the proceedings before the court of origin, the Court finds it difficult in arriving at a conclusion that the trial court
prudence and blame one who is innocent of the crime.[7] had erred in its findings considering the inconsistency between the testimonies of Reynante and
Plaridel as to who was supposedly chased and attacked by the
Moreover, petitioners failed to impute improper or evil motive on the part of either Del Fierro or Bernardo-Almaria to Bernardos. It is clear from an overall examination of the testimonies of all the witnesses that the prosecutions version in both
falsely testify against them. When there is no showing of any improper motive on the part of a prosecution witness to testify cases was indeed the more logical and straight-forward one, hence more worthy of belief.
falsely against an accused, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and that the testimony is worthy of
full faith and credence.[8] Petitioner pleads the Court to acquit them on the basis of reasonable doubt. The conviction, however, still stands. It must
be remembered that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding the possibility of
Indeed, the CA made the following apt observation: error, produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.[14] We find that the two courts below had not erred in arriving at a moral certainty as to the guilt of the
Besides, accused-appellants also presented their relatives to testify in their favor, namely: Tomas Damasco, their first petitioners for the offense of homicide charged against them in Criminal Case No. Z-814.
cousin, Maritess Alfaro, their sister, Rex Alfaro, their brother-in-law and Divino Tadeja, their uncle. Would accused-
appellants agree on putting little or no weight at all to the testimonies of their witnesses just because they are relatives WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed decision and resolution of the CA are AFFIRMED.
following the saying that what is sauce for the goose must be the sauce for the gander?[9]
SO ORDERED.
Petitioners also argue that the CA had erred in not appreciating the defense of alibi interposed by the brothers Ferdinand,
Ricky and Ricardo. For alibi to prosper, the accused must show that he was so far away from the scene of the crime that he
could not have been physically present thereat at the time the crime was committed, and that his presence elsewhere renders
it physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. Put differently, for the defense of alibi to be worthy of credence, THIRD DIVISION
one who invokes it must prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the situs of the crime at the time of its
[G.R. No. 161070. April 14, 2008.]
commission.
JOHN HILARIO y SIBAL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Here, it is not disputed that the Tadejas and the victim were all residents of Barangay Talabaan,
Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro. Neither is it disputed that the locus of the crime was only about a kilometer away from the DECISION
house of the brothers Ferdinand, Ricky and Bernardo where they were allegedly sleeping at the time the victim Ruben
Bernardo was killed.Given such a distance, the Court sees no physical impossibility for them to be at the scene of the crime AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
at the time of its commission. The distance would only take few minutes to traverse.
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by The records do not show that the RTC required petitioner's counsel to whom petitioner attributed the act of not filing the
John Hilario y Sibal (petitioner), seeking to annul and set aside the Resolutions dated August 19, 2003 [1] and November notice of appeal to file his comment.
282003[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 75820.
On September 30, 2002, petitioner's counsel filed a Withdrawal of Appearance[7] from the case with petitioner's
The antecedents are as follows: consent. Again, the documents before us do not show the action taken by the RTC thereon.

Petitioner, together with one Gilbert Alijid (Alijid), was charged with two counts[3] of Murder in the Regional Trial Court In an Order[8] dated December 13, 2002, the RTC dismissed petitioner's petition for relief with the following disquisition:
(RTC), Branch 76, Quezon City to which petitioner, assisted by counsel de parte, pleaded not guilty.
After a careful study of the instant petition and the arguments raised by the contending parties, the Court is not persuaded by
During trial, Atty. Raul Rivera of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), counsel of Alijid, took over representing petitioner in petitioner/accused's allegation that he was prevented from filing a notice of appeal due to excusable negligence of his
view of the death of the latter's counsel. counsel.

On December 5, 2001, the RTC rendered its Decision[4] finding petitioner and his co-accused Alijid guilty beyond Accused's allegation that he indeed specifically instructed his counsel to file a notice of appeal of the Decision dated
reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day [sic] and the latter did not heed his instruction is at best self-serving and unsubstantiated and thus, unworthy of credence. At
of prision mayor to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal in each count. any rate, even if said omission should be considered as negligence, it is a well-settled rule that negligence of counsel is
binding on the client. x x x Besides, nowhere does it appear that accused/petitioner was prevented from fairly presenting his
On May 10, 2002, petitioner, this time unassisted by counsel, filed with the RTC a Petition for Relief[5] from the Decision defense nor does it appear that he was prejudiced as the merits of this case were adequately passed upon in the Decision
dated December 5, 2001 together with an affidavit of merit. In his petition, petitioner contended that at the time of the dated December 5, 2001.
promulgation of the judgment, he was already confined at Quezon City Jail and was directed to be committed to the National
Penitentiary in Muntinlupa; that he had no way of personally filing the notice of appeal thus he instructed his lawyer to file it It must also be pointed out that in his petition for relief, he stated that he instructed his counsel to file the necessary motion
on his behalf; that he had no choice but to repose his full trust and confidence to his lawyer; that he had instructed his lawyer for reconsideration or notice of appeal of the Decision dated December 5, 2001, whereas in his affidavit of merit, he claimed
to file the necessary motion for reconsideration or notice of appeal; that on May 2, 2002, he was already incarcerated at the to have told his counsel to simply file a notice of appeal thereof. [9] (Emphasis supplied)
New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City and learned from the grapevine of his impending transfer to the Iwahig Penal
Colony, Palawan; that believing that the notice of appeal filed by his counsel prevented the Decision dated December 5, Petitioner, again by himself, filed a petition for certiorari with the CA on the ground that the RTC committed grave abuse of
2001 from becoming final to warrant his transfer, he instructed his representative to get a copy of the notice of appeal from discretion in dismissing his petition for relief. He claims that the delay in appealing his case without his fault constitutes
the RTC; that no notice of appeal was filed by his lawyer in defiance of his clear instructions; and that the RTC Decision excusable negligence to warrant the granting of his petition for relief.
showed that it was received by his counsel on February 1, 2002 and yet the counsel did not inform him of any action taken
In a Resolution dated August 19, 2003, the CA dismissed the petition in this wise:
thereon.

Petitioner claimed that he had a meritorious defense, to wit:

It appearing that petitioner in the instant petition for certiorari failed to attach the following documents cited in his petition,
1. The Decision dated December 5, 2001, on page 16 thereof states an imprisonment term of eight (8) years and one
namely:
(1) day of Prision Mayor to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of Reclusion Temporal - a matter which ought to be
rectified; 1. The December 5, 2001 Decision;
2. The undersigned is a first time offender; 2. Comment of the City Prosecutor;
3. No ruling was laid down on the stipulated facts (Decision, p. 3) relative to the (1) absence of counsel during the 3. Manifestation of petitioner's counsel de oficio signifying his withdrawal as petitioner's counsel.
alleged inquest, and (2) absence of warrant in arresting the accused after ten (10) days from the commission of the crime;
The instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
4. Absence of a corroborating witness to the purported lone eyewitness, as against the corroborated testimony of and as prayed for by the Solicitor General.[10]
accused-petitioner's alibi;
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated November 28, 2003 for having been filed beyond
5. The Commission on Human Rights investigation on the torture of the accused-petitioner; the 15-day reglementary period, in violation of Section 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court and for failure to attach to the
petition, the relevant and pertinent documents. The CA also stressed that procedural rules are not to be belittled simply
6. and others.[6]
because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights.
Petitioner argued that he was meted a total of 16 years imprisonment or almost equal to the previous capital punishment of
Hence, herein recourse filed by petitioner, still unassisted by counsel, raising the following issues:
20 years which was given an automatic review by the Supreme Court, thus it is of greater interest of justice that his case be
reviewed by the appellate court; and that no damage will be sustained if the appeal is given due course since he continues to Whether or not the delay in appealing the instant case due to the defiance of the petitioner's counsel de oficio to seasonably
languish in jail while the Petition for Relief is pending. file a Notice of Appeal, constitutes excusable negligence to entitle the undersigned detention prisoner/ petitioner to pursue
his appeal?
The Assistant City Prosecutor filed his Comment on the Petition for Relief where he contended that the petition should no
longer be entertained; and that perfection of appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law was not only Whether or not pro hac vice, the mere invocation of justice warrants the review of a final and executory judgment?
mandatory but jurisdictional and failure to perfect the appeal rendered the judgment final and executory.
Petitioner contends that the negligence of his counsel de oficio cannot be binding on him for the latter's defiance of his or order within a specific period of time; or (c) order the petitioner to file an amended petition appending thereto the
instruction to appeal automatically breaks the fiduciary relationship between counsel-client and cannot be against the client required pleadings, documents or order within a fixed period.[11]
who was prejudiced; that this breach of trust cannot easily be concocted in this situation considering that it was a
counsel de oficio, a lawyer from PAO, who broke the fiduciary relationship; that the assailed CA Resolutions both harped on The RTC Decision dated December 5, 2001, finding petitioner guilty of two counts of homicide, the Comment of the City
technicalities to uphold the dismissal by the RTC of his petition for relief; that reliance on technicalities to the prejudice of Prosecutor as well as the counsel's withdrawal of appearance were considered by the CA as relevant and pertinent to the
petitioner who is serving 14 years imprisonment for a crime he did not commit is an affront to the policy promulgated by petition for certiorari, thus it dismissed the petition for failure to attach the same. However, the CA failed to consider the
this Court that dismissal purely on technical grounds is frowned upon especially if it will result to unfairness; and that it fact that the petition before it was filed by petitioner, a detained prisoner, without the benefit of counsel. A litigant who is
would have been for the best interest of justice for the CA to have directed the petitioner to complete the records instead of not a lawyer is not expected to know the rules of procedure. In fact, even the most experienced lawyers get tangled in the
dismissing the petition outright. web of procedure.[12] We have held in a civil case that to demand as much from ordinary citizens whose
only compelle intrare is their sense of right would turn the legal system into an intimidating monstrosity where an individual
In his Comment, the OSG argues that the mere invocation of justice does not warrant the review of an appeal from a final may be stripped of his property rights not because he has no right to the property but because he does not know how to
and executory judgment; that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only establish such right.[13] This finds application specially if the liberty of a person is at stake. As we held in Telan v. Court of
mandatory but jurisdictional and failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment sought to be reviewed final and Appeals:
not appealable; and that petitioner's appeal after the finality of judgment of conviction is an exercise in futility, thus the RTC
properly dismissed petitioner's petition for relief from judgment. The OSG further claims that notice to counsel is notice to The right to counsel in civil cases exists just as forcefully as in criminal cases, specially so when as a consequence, life,
clients and failure of counsel to notify his client of an adverse judgment would not constitute excusable negligence and liberty, or property is subjected to restraint or in danger of loss.
therefore binding on the client.
In criminal cases, the right of an accused person to be assisted by a member of the bar is immutable. Otherwise, there would
We grant the petition. be a grave denial of due process. Thus, even if the judgment had become final and executory, it may still be recalled, and the
accused afforded the opportunity to be heard by himself and counsel.
The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Rule 46, on the ground
that petitioner failed to attach certain documents which the CA found to be relevant and pertinent to the petition xxxx
for certiorari.
Even the most experienced lawyers get tangled in the web of procedure. The demand as much from ordinary citizens whose
The requirements to attach such relevant pleadings under Section 1, Rule 65 is read in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 of only compelle intrare is their sense of right would turn the legal system into an intimidating monstrosity where an individual
the Rules of Court, thus: may be stripped of his property rights not because he has no right to the property but because he does not know how to
establish such right.
Section 1, Rule 65 provides:
The right to counsel is absolute and may be invoked at all times. More so, in the case of an on-going litigation, it is a right
SECTION. 1. Petition for certiorari. that must be exercised at every step of the way, with the lawyer faithfully keeping his client company.

xxxx No arrangement or interpretation of law could be as absurd as the position that the right to counsel exists only in the trial
courts and that thereafter, the right ceases in the pursuit of the appeal.[14] (Emphasis supplied)
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all
pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto x x x. The filing of the petition for certiorari by petitioner without counsel should have alerted the CA and should have
required petitioner to cause the entry of appearance of his counsel. Although the petition filed before the CA was a petition
Section 3, Rule 46, provides: for certiorari assailing the RTC Order dismissing the petition for relief, the ultimate relief being sought by petitioner was to
be given the chance to file an appeal from his conviction, thus the need for a counsel is more pronounced. To repeat the
SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements.
ruling in Telan, no arrangement or interpretation of law could be as absurd as the position that the right to counsel exists
xxxx only in the trial courts and that thereafter, the right ceases in the pursuit of the appeal. [15] It is even more important to note
that petitioner was not assisted by counsel when he filed his petition for relief from judgment with the RTC.
[The petition] shall be x x x accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order,
resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents It cannot be overstressed therefore, that in criminal cases, as held in Telan, the right of an accused person to be assisted by a
relevant or pertinent thereto x x x. member of the bar is immutable; otherwise, there would be a grave denial of due process.

xxxx Cases should be determined on the merits after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses,
rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice would be served better. [16]
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of
the petition. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration for having been filed late. It appears that the CA Resolution
dismissing the petition for certiorari was received at the address written in the petition on September 1, 2003, and that
The initial determination of what pleadings, documents or orders are relevant and pertinent to the petition rests on the petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration on September 18, 2003, or two days late.
petitioner. If, upon its initial review of the petition, the CA is of the view that additional pleadings, documents or order
should have been submitted and appended to the petition, the following are its options: (a) dismiss the petition under the last
paragraph of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court; (b) order the petitioner to submit the required additional pleadings, documents,
While as a general rule, the failure of petitioner to file his motion for reconsideration within the 15-day reglementary period Even if the judgment had become final and executory, it may still be recalled, and the accused afforded the opportunity to be
fixed by law rendered the resolution final and executory, we have on some occasions relaxed this rule. Thus, in Barnes heard by himself and counsel.[22] However, instead of remanding the case to the CA for a decision on the merits, we opt to
v. Padilla[17] we held: resolve the same so as not to further delay the final disposition of this case.

However, this Court has relaxed this rule in order to serve substantial justice considering (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or The RTC denied the petition for relief as it found petitioner's claim that his counsel did not heed his instruction to file an
property, (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of the case, (d) a cause not entirely appeal to be unsubstantiated and self serving; and that if there was indeed such omission committed by the counsel, such
attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (e) a lack of any showing that the negligence is binding on the client.
review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
Petitioner insists that the failure of his counsel to timely file a notice of appeal of his judgment of conviction despite his
Invariably, rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and explicit instruction to do so constitutes excusable negligence and so his petition for relief should have been granted.
rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must
always be eschewed. Even the Rules of Court reflects this principle. The power to suspend or even disregard rules can We find that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's petition for relief from judgment.
be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself had already declared to be final.
Petitioner was represented in the RTC by Atty. Rivera of the PAO. Section 1, Article IV of PAO Memorandum Circular
In De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan, this Court, speaking through the late Justice Ricardo J. Francisco, had occasion to state: No.18 series of 2002, the Amended Standard Office Procedures in Extending Legal Assistance(PAO Memorandum
Circular), provides that all appeals must be made upon the request of the client himself and only meritorious cases shall be
The Rules of Court was conceived and promulgated to set forth guidelines in the dispensation of justice but not to bind and appealed; while Section 2, Article II of PAO Memorandum Circular provides that in criminal cases, the accused enjoys the
chain the hand that dispenses it, for otherwise, courts will be mere slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial constitutional presumption of innocence until the contrary is proven, hence cases of defendants in criminal actions are
discretion. That is precisely why courts in rendering justice have always been, as they ought to be guided by the norm that considered meritorious and therefore, should be appealed, upon the client's request.
when on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around. Truly then,
technicalities, in the appropriate language of Justice Makalintal, "should give way to the realities of the situation. In this case, petitioner claims he had instructed the PAO lawyer to file an appeal. Under the PAO Memorandum Circular,
it was the duty of the latter to perfect the appeal. Thus, in determining whether the petition for relief from judgment is based
Indeed, the emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper on a meritorious ground, it was crucial to ascertain whether petitioner indeed gave explicit instruction to the PAO lawyer to
and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[18] file an appeal but the latter failed to do so.

Moreover, in Basco v. Court of Appeals,[19] we also held: To determine the veracity of petitioner's claim, it was incumbent upon the RTC to have required the PAO lawyer to
comment on the petition for relief. However, it appears from the records that the RTC only required the City Prosecutor to
Nonetheless, procedural rules were conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent application of the rules would file a comment on the petition.
hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former must yield to the latter. Recognizing this, Section 2,
Rule 1 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that: The RTC Order dismissing the petition for relief did not touch on the question whether the PAO lawyer was indeed
negligent in not filing the appeal as it merely stated that even if said omission, i.e., not filing the appeal despite his
SECTION 2. Construction. These rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties clients instruction to do so, should be considered as negligence, it is a well-settled rule that negligence of counsel is binding
in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.[20] on the client.
Petitioner claims that he actually received the CA Resolution dismissing his petition for certiorari only on September 4, While as a general rule, negligence of counsel may not be condoned and should bind the client, [23] the exception is when the
2003 even as the same Resolution was earlier received on September 1, 2003 at the address written in his petition, i.e., c/o negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court. [24] In Aguilar v.
Robert S. Bacuraya, No. 9 Iris St., West Fairview, 1118, Quezon City, by a certain Leonora Coronel. Court of Appeals,[25] we held:
Apparently, Bacuraya is not a lawyer. Ordinarily, petitioner being detained at the
NationalPenitentiary, Muntinlupa, the CA should have also sent a copy of such Resolution to his place of x x x Losing liberty by default of an insensitive lawyer should be frowned upon despite the fiction that a client is bound by
detention. Considering that petitioner only received the Resolution on September 4, 2003, we find the two days delay in the mistakes of his lawyer. The established jurisprudence holds:
filing his motion for reconsideration pardonable as it did not cause any prejudice to the other party. There is no showing that
petitioner was motivated by a desire to delay the proceedings or obstruct the administration of justice. The suspension of the xxxx
Rules is warranted in this case since the procedural infirmity was not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of
The function of the rule that negligence or mistake of counsel in procedure is imputed to and binding upon the client, as any
petitioner.
other procedural rule, is to serve as an instrument to advance the ends of justice. When in the circumstances of each case the
Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in rule desert its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, its rigors must be relaxed
court. A strict and rigid application of rules that would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote to admit exceptions thereto and to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.
substantial justice must be avoided.[21]
xxxx
In dismissing the petition for certiorari filed before it, the CA clearly put a premium on technicalities and brushed aside the
The court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule whenever the purposes of justice require it.
issue raised before it by petitioner, i.e., whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's
petition for relief thus preventing him from taking an appeal from his conviction. xxxx
If the incompetence, ignorance or inexperience of counsel is so great and the error committed as a result thereof is so serious
that the client, who otherwise has a good cause, is prejudiced and denied his day in court, the litigation may be reopened to
give the client another chance to present his case. In a criminal proceeding, where certain evidence was not presented
because of counsel's error or incompetence, the defendant in order to secure a new trial must satisfy the court that he has a
good defense and that the acquittal would in all probability have followed the introduction of the omitted evidence. What
should guide judicial action is that a party be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense
rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on mere technicalities.[26]

The PAO lawyer, Atty. Rivera, filed his Withdrawal of Appearance on September 30, 2002, almost three months before the
RTC rendered its assailed Order dated December 13, 2002, dismissing the petition for relief. The RTC had ample time to
require the PAO lawyer to comment on the petition for relief from judgment, before issuing the questioned Order. Had the
RTC done so, there would have been a factual basis for the RTC to determine whether or not the PAO lawyer
was grossly negligent; and eventually, whether the petition for relief from judgment is meritorious. If there was no
instruction from petitioner to file an appeal, then there was no obligation on the part of the PAO lawyer to file an appeal as
stated in the PAO Memorandum Circular and negligence could not be attributed to him. However, if indeed there was such
an instruction to appeal but the lawyer failed to do so, he could be considered negligent.

Thus, there was no basis for the RTC to conclude that the claim of petitioner that he instructed the PAO lawyer to file an
appeal as self-serving and unsubstantiated. The RTC's dismissal of the petition for relief was done with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to an undue denial of the petitioner's right to appeal.

The RTC faulted petitioner for claiming in his petition for relief that he instructed his counsel to file the necessary motion
for reconsideration or notice of appeal; while in his affidavit of merit, he claimed to have told his counsel to simply file a
notice of appeal. We do not find such circumstance sufficient ground to dismiss the petition considering that he filed the
petition for relief unassisted by counsel.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to appeal in the manner prescribed by law. The importance and
real purpose of the remedy of appeal has been emphasized in Castro v. Court of Appeals[27]where we ruled that an appeal is
an essential part of our judicial system and trial courts are advised to proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the
right to appeal and instructed that every party-litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just
disposition of his cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities. While this right is statutory, once it is granted by law,
however, its suppression would be a violation of due process, a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Thus, the importance
of finding out whether petitioner's loss of the right to appeal was due to the PAO lawyer's negligence and not at all attributed
to petitioner.

However, we cannot, in the present petition for review on certiorari, make a conclusive finding that indeed there
was excusable negligence on the part of the PAO lawyer which prejudiced petitioner's right to appeal his conviction. To do
so would be pure speculation or conjecture. Therefore, a remand of this case to the RTC for the proper determination of the
merits of the petition for relief from judgment is just and proper.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated August 19, 2003 and November 28, 2003 of the Court of
Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated December 13, 2002 of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 76, is SET ASIDE. The RTC is hereby ordered to require Atty. Raul Rivera of the Public
Attorney's Office to file his comment on the petition for relief from judgment filed by petitioner, hold a hearing
thereon, and thereafter rule on the merits of the petition for relief from judgment, with dispatch.

SO ORDERED.