Baguio Central University v. Serrano

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 220062. April 18, 2018.]

BAGUIO CENTRAL UNIVERSITY, petitioner,vs. NELISSA GAYLE SERRANO and CESAR WANDANGAN MORALES, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 18, 2018, which reads as follows: ETHIDa

"G.R. No. 220062 (BAGUIO CENTRAL UNIVERSITY, Petitioner, v. NELISSA GAYLE SERRANO and CESAR WANDANGAN MORALES, Respondents.) — By petition for certiorari, 1 the petitioner seeks to set aside the decision promulgated on July 14, 2015, 2 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed its petition for certiorari brought to assail the denial by the Regional Trial Court in Baguio City (RTC) through the order issued on June 15, 2012 of its motion to be allowed to cross-examine the respondents as the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 29497-R, 29498-R, Criminal Case No. 29519-R to Criminal Case No. 29526-R of the RTC (in which it was the offended party represented by its own private prosecutor), and to present rebuttal evidence therein.

Antecedents

The following factual and procedural antecedents are summarized by the CA in its assailed decision as follows:

Petitioner Baguio Central University ("BCU") is an educational institution and the private complainant in Criminal Case Nos. 29497-R, 29498-R, 29519-R to 29526-R for Qualified Theft with Simple Theft which were instituted on June 5, 2009. Private respondents Nelissa Gayle Serrano ("Serrano"), an employee of BCU, and Cesar Wandagan Morales ("Morales"), Serrano's boyfriend, are the accused in these said criminal cases. Evidently, Morales is under detention while Serrano is still at large. The Information for each of the criminal cases, which were similarly worded except for the dates and amounts, read:

That on or about . . . in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, NELISSA GAYLE SERRANO, being then the Payroll Officer of Baguio Central University, a position endowed with trust and confidence, with grave abuse of confidence and with intent to gain, did then and there credit the amount of . . . to Account No. 3238264643 under the name of Cesar Wandagan Morales, Jr. and in conspiracy with co-accused Cesar Wandagan Morales, Jr., then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take[,] steal and carry away the said amount belonging to Baguio Central University . . .

Notably, E.M. Avila Law Office, acting as private prosecutor, represented BCU and actively prosecuted the case under the supervision and control of the Public Prosecutor, Edwin Brian Sagsago ("Prosec. Sagsago"). In the course of the criminal proceedings, Morales filed a Demurrer to Evidence dated February 10, 2012 which the prosecution countered with an Opposition. Thus, as narrated by the RTC in its Order dated March 2, 2012 which denied Morales' Demurrer to Evidence, the following are the incidents of the aforementioned criminal cases:

This criminal case was originally raffled to this Court's Branch 3.

Only accused Cesar Wandagan Morales[,] Jr. was arrested. On January 29, 2010 he was arraigned in Crim. Case Nos. 29497-R and 29519-R to 29526-R. He pleaded not guilty in these criminal cases.

On March 8, 2010 Branch 10 inhibited itself from hearing these cases. On March 22, 2010 this Court's Branch 5 issued an Order accepting the instant cases. On March 29, 2010 these cases were referred to the Philippine Mediation Center for the court-annexed mediation. On May 17, 2010 the court-annexed mediation was reported a failure. On June 21, 2010 the judicial dispute resolution was also unsuccessful. These cases were re-raffled to this Court, i.e., Branch 6.

On September 9, 2010 the pre-trial proper was held and completed. On even date the Pre-Trial Order was issued.

On October 27, 2010, February 23, 2011 and March 24, 2011 prosecution witness Jocelyn Bulwayan testified. cSEDTC

Meanwhile, on February 23, 2011, accused Cesar Wandagan Morales, Jr. was arraigned in Crim. Case No. 29498-R. The Pre-Trial Order in the other cases was adopted in the latter case. So were the evidence adduced thus far for the prosecution. A joint trial was held in Crim. Case No. 29498 together with Crim. Case Nos. 29497-R and 29519-R to 29526-R.

On August 10, 2011 Edwin Lacanlale took the witness stand.

On February 3, 2012, the prosecution offered in evidence Exhibits . . .

xxx xxx xxx

On February 7, 2012 the above exhibits were admitted in evidence.

On February 10, 2012 accused Cesar Wandagan Morales, Jr. filed his "Demurrer to Evidence" with motion for leave of court to file it.

On February 15, 2012 I granted leave of court for the filing of the "Demurrer to Evidence."

In denying the Demurrer to Evidence, the RTC found that there was prima facie evidence of Morales' complicity in the taking of money from the payroll of BCU, as he was an integral part in the process of unlawful taking of BCU's possession, custody and use of its payroll funds. Also, the RTC set the presentation of defense evidence on April 19, 20 and 25, 2012.

Thereafter, E.M. Avila Law Office filed its Withdrawal as Private Prosecutor dated April 19, 2012 which was granted by the RTC in its Order dated April 27, 2012 ("April 27, 2012 Order"). The trial court ordered that Prosec. Sagsago would take over the active prosecution of the case and scheduled the continuation of presentation of evidence on May 4, 2012. Yet, on May 4, 2012, then Presiding Judge Cleto R. Villacorta ("Judge Villacorta") was detailed full time at RTC, Quezon City. As a consequence, the May 4, 2012 hearing was cancelled. Subsequently, Atty. Liberato V. Tadeo ("Atty. Tadeo") filed a Notice of Appearance dated May 4, 2012 (actually received by the RTC on May 9, 2012) which manifested his entry of appearance as the new private prosecutor in behalf of BCU.

Afterwards, the Clerk of Court of the RTC issued a Notice (con't of trial) dated May 10, 2012 ("May 10, 2012 RTC Notice") which set the continuation of trial on May 25, 2012 under Acting Presiding Judge Cecilia Corazon S. Dulay Archog ("Judge Dulay-Archog"). However, the May 10, 2012 RTC Notice was only addressed to Atty. Guillermo Bandonill, Jr. ("Atty. Bandonill"), Morales' defense counsel, and the City Jail Warden.

Hence, on May 25, 2012, the defense presented its evidence constituting solely of the testimony of Morales. Since Prosec. Sagsago was able to cross-examine Morales at the time, the defense subsequently rested its case. Aggrieved, BCU, through Atty. Tadeo filed a motion to cross-examine and to present rebuttal witness which the RTC denied. In its assailed Order dated June 15, 2012, the RTC specifically ruled that:

There was indeed a lapse in not notifying private complainant and the private prosecutor for the May 25, 2012 hearing. However, no material damage can be attributed to this lapse as the public prosecutor was present and he actively and intelligently cross-examined the accused. After all, the public prosecutor has the direct supervision and control in the prosecution of a Criminal Case. Besides, when the case was called the public prosecutor manifested that he was ready. SDAaTC

On the matter of notice, it is incumbent upon every litigant and counsel to follow up the status of his case in Court, specially when entering as a new lawyer.

Furthermore, the motion was filed without the conformity of the public prosecutor.

BCU then filed a motion for reconsideration and set the motion hearing on July 6, 2012. On the said date, BCU manifested that it intended to present two witnesses to disprove and rebut the testimony of Morales. Subsequently, the RTC referred the motion to Prosec. Sagsago and Atty. Bandonill for their comments. Nonetheless, the RTC denied the motion in its assailed Order dated August 9, 2012. The court reiterated that Atty. Tadeo had no legal personality to file the motions since it was not shown that he secured the conformity of the public prosecutor. The RTC added that "the public prosecutor may turn over the actual prosecution of the criminal case in the exercise of his discretion, but he may, at any time, take over the actual conduct of the trial . . ."

By the same token, the RTC ruled that the "interest of private complainant had actually been addressed by the public prosecutor . . . when he assumed responsibility and actively and intelligently cross-examined the accused. There was no objection from the Public Prosecutor when the court considered the proceedings terminated and the parties required to submit respective memorandum. It pointed out that Prosec. Sagsago did not manifest that rebuttal evidence would be presented. Accordingly, "[P]rivate prosecutor cannot be permitted to adopt a position contrary to that of the Public prosecutor. To do so would be tantamount to giving the private prosecutor the direction and control of the criminal proceeding and the Public prosecutor would become unavoidably controlled by the private prosecutor. The RTC further stated that BCU (as private complainant) would not be precluded from filing a memorandum to include its rebuttal evidence. 3

The petitioner then brought its petition for certiorari in the CA, averring that the RTC had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction "in not notifying petitioner on the date of hearing and in disallowing petitioner to conduct cross examination and to present rebuttal of evidence." 4

As earlier stated, the CA, finding no merit in the petition for certiorari, dismissed it, disposing thusly:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.5

The petitioner now brings its petition for certiorari to this Court, 6 averring that the CA thereby committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in disallowing it from conducting cross-examination and from presenting rebuttal evidence. 7

The respondents counter that the CA did not commit any grave abuse of discretion because the petitioner was clearly afforded every reasonable opportunity to present its case; 8 and that the trial prosecutor extensively and competently conducted the cross-examination. 9

Ruling of the Court

We dismiss the petition for certiorari for lack of merit.

The issue can be easily resolved by reading the following explanations stated by the CA for dismissing the petition for certiorari brought against the order of the RTC, to wit: acEHCD

Henceforth, after careful analysis, We rule that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Orders. At the outset, it must be established that "All criminal actions commenced by complaint or information are prosecuted under the direction and control of public prosecutors." For this reason, it is well-settled that:

[T]he role of the fiscal or prosecutor as We all know is to see that justice is done and not necessarily to secure the conviction of the person accused before the Courts. Thus, in spite of his opinion to the contrary, it is the duty of the fiscal to proceed with the presentation of evidence of the prosecution to the Court to enable the Court to arrive at its own independent judgment as to whether the accused should be convicted or acquitted. The fiscal should not shirk from the responsibility of appearing for the People of the Philippines even under such circumstances much less should he abandon the prosecution of the case leaving it to the hands of a private prosecutor for then the entire proceedings will be null and void. The least that the fiscal should do is to continue to appear for the prosecution although he may turn over the presentation of the evidence to the private prosecutor but still under his direction and control.

In view of this, the public prosecutor's authority finds its basis on Rule 110, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, viz.:

SEC. 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. — All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecution to prosecute the case subject to the approval of the Court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to the end of the trial even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn.

As can be gleaned from the aforementioned provision, it is clear that the public prosecutor dictates the direction that the prosecution would take in a criminal case, even in the event that authority to prosecute would be granted to a private prosecutor. In the case at bench, E.M. Avila Law Office represented by Atty. Edgar M. Avila was employed by BCU as private prosecutor. E.M. Avila Law Office appeared to have secured the conformity of Prosec. Sagsago since there was no allegation that the law office was acting without authority. Thus, it can be inferred that all actions performed by E.M. Avila Law Office with regard to the prosecution of the case were consulted with and previously approved by Prosec. Sagsago. In line with this, the case of Leviste v. Alameda declared that "in cases where the private complainant is allowed to intervene by counsel in the criminal action, and is granted authority to prosecute, the private complainant, by counsel and with the conformity of the public prosecutor, can file a motion for reinvestigation. By analogy, the representative of E.M. Avila Law Office could file pleadings or motions at the time it was still performing its functions as private prosecutor.

Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that while E.M. Avila Law Office had the conformity of the public prosecutor beforehand, the same authority was effectively revoked when the law office withdrew its appearance. Consequently, the duty to prosecute the case reverted back to the public prosecutor. Necessarily, Prosec. Sagsago should resume actively prosecuting the case. In fact, the RTC recognized this when it stated in its April 27, 2012 Order that: "[A]s prayed for, the Law Firm of Avila Law Office is relieved as Private Prosecutor in this case. In order not to delay further the proceedings, the Public Prosecutor Pros. Edwin Brian Sagsago, will take over in the active prosecution of this case." Without a doubt "[T]he public prosecutor may turn over the actual prosecution of the criminal case to the private prosecutor, in the exercise of his discretion, but he may, at any time, take over the actual conduct of the trial." This function included Prosec. Sagsago's conduct of the cross-examination of Morales and his assent to the termination of the presentation of defense evidence. SDHTEC

Either way, petitioner BCU insisted that it was denied due process when the RTC failed to notify it of the continuation of trial. As a matter of fact, the May 10, 2012 RTC Notice only informed Atty. Bandonill and the City Jail warden of the continuation of trial which was scheduled on May 25, 2012. On this point, petitioner's contention has merit. Definitely, the RTC should have furnished copies of the said Notice to the prosecutors since receipt of the same would have given the prosecution the period to prepare as that hearing was the time in which Morales would give his testimony. On top of that, Morales' testimony happened to be his only evidence so that prosecution's presence was rather crucial on that hearing date. Accordingly, "the presence of a public prosecutor in the trial of criminal cases is necessary to protect vital state interests, foremost of which is its interest to vindicate the rule of law, the bedrock of peace of the people. The act of allowing the presentation of the defense witness in the absence of complainant public prosecutor or private prosecutor designated for the purpose is a clear transgression of the Rules which could not be rectified by subsequently giving the prosecution a chance to cross-examine the witnesses."

However, the factual circumstances of the case demonstrated that Prosec. Sagsago, despite non-receipt of the May 10, 2012 RTC Notice, was actually present in court the day that Morales underwent his direct examination. This is notwithstanding the RTC's admission that it committed a lapse in not notifying the prosecution of the May 25, 2012 hearing. In spite of that, the RTC noted that when the case was called, Prosec. Sagsago manifested that he was ready. He then proceeded to actively and intelligently cross-examine Morales after the direct examination. Afterwards, Morales rested his case.

For this Court, these instances negate BCU's allegation of denial of due process. The examination of the accused could only be invalidated and declared as a violation of due process if the prosecutor, whether public or private, was not present in the hearing in which the defense presented its witnesses. Undoubtedly, Prosec. Sagsago was there when Morales testified. Besides, "due process simply demands an opportunity to be heard. Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy. Where an opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process."

xxx xxx xxx

Upon Our evaluation of the circumstances surrounding the case, We find that the RTC's lapse in not providing copies of the May 10, 2012 RTC Notice to petitioner and its new counsel, Atty. Tadeo, while it was an error, did not amount to grave abuse of discretion. Most likely, the failure of the Clerk of Court to include the names of Prosec. Sagsago and petitioner BCU or even Atty. Tadeo in the Notice was an oversight on its part. This is because if the RTC indeed intended to deprive the prosecution of due process, then it should not have permitted Prosec. Sagsago to cross-examine Morales or it should not have even stated that BCU could file a memorandum to put forth its rebuttal evidence. Besides, during the May 25, 2012 hearing, the RTC interpreted Prosec. Sagsago's appearance and manifestation as assent to the continuation of the trial despite the absence of prior notice of that same hearing.

Additionally, the RTC permitted Prosec. Sagsago to conduct the cross-examination and even asked him if he would agree to the termination of the presentation of defense evidence. The RTC accepted Prosec. Sagsago's representations, and rightly so, because it was understood and previously declared that upon E.M. Avila Law Office's withdrawal as private prosecutor, the public prosecutor would take over the active prosecution of the case. Such would be confirmed by this Court's finding that Atty. Tadeo did not even have Prosec. Sagsago's conformity to enter as the new private prosecutor; therefore, BCU could not insist on its position that it should have been allowed to cross-examine Morales even after Prosec. Sagsago did so. In other words, petitioner BCU should endeavor to first secure the public prosecutor's conformity before filing any motion in order to ascertain that its arguments and even additional evidence would be duly considered by the trial court. 10 AScHCD

We concur with the foregoing explanations of the CA, which we find to be forthright and appropriate, as well as in accord with law and jurisprudence.

Indeed, the prosecution of a criminal case comes within the full control of the public prosecutor. If the private prosecutor is ever allowed to take part, his doing so can only be under the supervision and control of the public prosecutor. In the criminal cases involving the petitioner and the respondents, the public prosecutor had not even authorized the former's private prosecutor to handle the criminal prosecution of the latter. Only when the public prosecutor authorized the private prosecutor could the latter take part in the criminal prosecution. It is relevant to stress that even if the participation of the private prosecutor had been allowed, the extent of such participation would be limited to the prosecution of the criminal aspect of the criminal cases. Consequently, the CA did not act arbitrarily, or whimsically, or capriciously in dismissing the petition for certiorari brought to assail the questioned order of the RTC.

WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition for certiorari; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on February July * 14, 2015; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 8-18.

2.Id. at 23-37; penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, with Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz concurring.

3.Id. at 23-27.

4.Id. at 27.

5.Id. at 36.

6.Id. at 8-19.

7.Id. at 12.

8.Id. at 64.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 29-36.