SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230074. December 1, 2021.]
OSCAR DE JESUS, RAMON GABUNA, DEDO GACURA, CHARLITO RODEO, JOSEPH VILLANUEVA, ANICETO VILLANUEVA and JERICHO LILANG, petitioners,vs. ELEUTERIO D. ALMOGUERRA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated01 December 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230074 (Oscar de Jesus, Ramon Gabuna, Dedo Gacura, Charlito Rodeo, Joseph Villanueva, Aniceto Villanueva and Jericho Lilang v. Eleuterio D. Almoguerra). — This petition for review on certiorari1 assails the September 30, 2016 Decision 2 and January 19, 2017 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 138695 annulling the April 14, 2014 4 and September 17, 2014 5 Resolutions of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82 of Odiongan, Romblon in Criminal Case No. OD-1940 which granted petitioners' petition for bail and demurrer to evidence. 6
The Antecedents:
The instant case stemmed from an Information 7 filed on December 20, 2007 against petitioners Ramon Gabuna a.k.a. "Efren'' (Efren), Dedo Gacura, Charlito Rodeo a.k.a. "Enteng" (Rodeo), Oscar de Jesus a.k.a. "Oka" (Oka), Joseph Villanueva a.k.a. "Loloy" (Loloy), Aniceto Villanueva a.k.a. ''Nonoy" (Nonoy), Jericho Lilang a.k.a. "Ekoy" (Ekoy), and Nelson Flores (Flores) (collectively, petitioners), for the Murder of Andy Almoguera (Andy). A warrant of arrest 8 was issued and petitioners were arrested after going into hiding for several months. Upon arraignment, 9 petitioners entered separate pleas of "not guilty" to the crime charged.
On July 14, 2008, Flores filed his petition for bail. 10 Thereafter, a hearing on the petition for bail ensued. The prosecution presented the following witnesses: 1) child witness Armar Almoguera (Armar); 2) Police Officer 3 (PO3) Harby M. Francisco; 3) Jovito Almoguera (Jovito); 4) Gloria Calumpas (Gloria); 5) Dr. Ederlina Aguirre (Dr. Aguirre); and 6) Elizabeth Almoguera (Elizabeth). 11 During the interim, the prosecution and defense agreed to adopt all the proceedings that had been conducted in relation to the petition for bail in favor of Rodeo. 12 Subsequently, the trial court granted the petition for bail and allowed Flores and Rodeo to post bail in the amount of P200,000.00 13 each. The prosecution moved for its reconsideration 14 but was later denied. 15
Meanwhile, Efren, Oka, Loloy, Nonoy, and Ekoy likewise filed their petition for bail. 16 Their petition was later on granted by the trial court in its February 21, 2011 Resolution. 17
Thereafter, trial on the merits of the main case ensued. The prosecution presented additional witnesses, namely: 1) PO3 Allan Fruelda (Fruelda); 2) Eleutorio Almoguera (herein respondent); 3) Aurora Claud (Claud), and recalled Jovito on the witness stand. 18
When the prosecution formally rested its case on April 22, 2013, 19 herein petitioners filed a motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, 20 which the trial court granted. 21
Subsequently, a demurrer to evidence 22 was filed. Petitioners argued that the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 23 They contended that child witness Armar is a completely coached, unreliable, and perjured witness. 24 They stressed that after initially relying on the testimony of the victim's minor son who allegedly witnessed the crime, the prosecution shifted its focus and claimed that petitioners tried to amicably settle the case. 25 Petitioners claimed that as a whole, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were full of inconsistencies and contradictions. 26 They pointed out that evidence should not only come from a trustworthy witness, but must be credible in itself as well. 27
Petitioners also emphasized that the post mortem examination 28 by Dr. Aguirre, show that the latter died of drowning without any indication of foul play. 29 Similarly, the police officers who responded to the crime scene did not find anything suspicious to suggest that the deceased was killed. 30
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its Resolution 31 dated April 14, 2014, the RTC granted the demurrer to evidence. The dispositive portion of the April 14, 2014 Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, finding the "Demurrer to Evidence" with merit, the same is hereby granted. Ramon Gabuna, Dedo Gacura, Charlito Rodeo, Oscar De Jesus, Joseph Villanueva, Aniceto Villanueva, Jericho Lilang, and Nelson Flores are hereby acquitted of the offense charged. 32
Reiterating its findings in its May 6, 2010 Resolution 33 granting bail to the accused, the trial court held that the prosecution evidence was weak to sustain the conviction of the accused. 34 It stressed that the injuries sustained by Andy, as testified by Armar and Jovito, were belied by the results of the post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Aguirre 35 that there were no mortal wounds on the body of the victim, contrary to Armar's claim that he saw Flores stab Andy. The RTC also noted that the wounds sustained by Andy were mere abrasions, and not contusions or mortal wounds that would have resulted from the alleged mauling. 36 The trial court also highlighted that the testimonies of Armar and Jovito did not corroborate each other on material points. 37 Thus, it upheld the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
Aggrieved, respondent sought the reconsideration 38 of the trial court's Resolution but the same was denied. 39 Thus, respondent filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus40 with the CA. In its January 30, 2015 Resolution, 41 the CA directed respondent to file an amended petition, which the latter complied with. 42 Thereafter, the parties filed their respective memoranda. 43
Respondent argued before the appellate court that the trial court lacked basis in discrediting the prosecution witnesses during the hearing for petition for bail. He emphasized that because the defense opted not to present any evidence during the hearing for bail, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses remained unrebutted. 44 Moreover, respondent averred that the trial court did not rule on the merits of the issue. Respondent contended that by parroting the resolution granting the petition for bail, the trial court gravely abused its discretion and ignored the evidence presented by the prosecution. 45 Lastly, respondent contended that the RTC wrongly and unjustifiably granted petitioners' two requests for extension to file demurrer to evidence in patent violation of the Rules. 46
The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), maintained that respondent failed to specify how the trial court gravely abused its discretion and how such was a jurisdictional issue subject of a certiorari case. 47 Nevertheless, respondent's bare allegations cannot overthrow the presumption of regularity in the trial court's acts. 48
As to the petition for mandamus, the OSG contended that respondent failed to specify the ministerial duty that the trial court allegedly failed to perform. Since the resolution of the demurrer to evidence calls for the exercise of discretion, the OSG argued that it cannot be the subject of a mandamus petition. 49
The OSG also pointed out that respondent failed to attach certified true copies of the subject judgments, orders, or resolutions to his petition. 50
On the other hand, petitioners argued that respondent has no legal personality to file the amended petition since the law requires the OSG to represent the Government in all criminal proceedings before the appellate court. In any case, the amended petition did not conform to the formalities required under the Rules of Court. 51
Petitioners also reiterated that Armar was a coached, unreliable, and perjured witness. They reasoned that Armar was inconsistent in his testimony and refused to answer simple questions. Moreover, they contended that Jovito's testimony did not corroborate Armar's testimony on material points. 52
As to the testimonies of Gloria and Elizabeth regarding the alleged offer of petitioners to settle the case, petitioners argued that they are inadmissible in evidence for being hearsay. 53
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its September 30, 2016 Decision, 54 the CA reversed the RTC. The fallo of the appellate court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions dated April 14, 2014 and September 17, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Odiongan, Romblon, Branch 82 in Criminal Case No. OD-1940 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Let the instant case be remanded to the RTC and reinstated for the reception of the defense evidence/further trial.
SO ORDERED.55
At the outset, the CA held that the issue raised by respondent with regard to the petition for bail was already moot and academic since the judgment has attained finality. 56
The appellate court found that that the prosecution has presented competent evidence to sustain the conviction of the accused for the crime charged. The CA explained that the trial court failed to consider the fact that Dr. Aguirre's testimony corroborated Armar's testimony as to the location of the wounds sustained by the victim. 57 The CA opined that despite Dr. Aguirre's finding that there were no fatal injuries in Andy's body, the petitioners can still be held liable for the victim's death especially when the injuries were the direct and natural consequences of their felonious acts. 58 Moreover, in the absence of controverting evidence, the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction. In effect, the burden of evidence was shifted on the accused to prove their innocence and trial on the merits is necessary. 59
The appellate court also emphasized that the power to grant demurrer in criminal cases must be exercised with great caution because once the accused is acquitted, the offended party may be left with no recourse. 60 Therefore, the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting the demurrer to evidence, which resulted in the improvident acquittal of the accused. 61
Aggrieved, petitioners filed the present petition arguing that the CA rendered a decision not in accord with the law or the jurisprudence. 62 They maintain that respondent has no legal personality to file the amended petition before the CA since it is the OSG that has the power, authority and discretion to represent the People before the appellate courts in all criminal proceedings. 63
Petitioners also reiterate that the prosecution wholly failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain their indictment due to the inconsistent and conflicting testimony the prosecution witnesses. 64 For one, Armar testified flawlessly and almost verbatim with regard to his Sinumpaang Salaysay. 65 However, when cross-examined on basic questions, he had difficulty giving an answer. 66 Moreover, his narration on where the attack took place was incredulous to be believed. Petitioners point out that it is physically impossible for eight of them to fit in a one-meter high and one-meter wide canal in the fishpond, where they allegedly simultaneously bound, attacked, mauled, and stabbed the deceased. 67 Considering that Armar was also purportedly hiding behind a coconut tree eight to 10 meters away from the one-meter deep canal, it would be impossible for him to see that his father was stabbed when the latter fell down in the canal. 68 Lastly, Armar gave conflicting answers as to when he informed his grandparents about what happened to his father. 69
As to the other prosecution witnesses, petitioners claim that Jovito is a perjured witness, whose testimony contradict that of Armar. 70 On the other hand, they maintain that the testimonies of Gloria and Elizabeth are inadmissible for being hearsay. 71 They assert that the findings of Dr. Aguirre should be given respect and full credit. 72
Our Ruling
The petition is impressed with merit.
In appeals of criminal cases before the CA and before the Court, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People, pursuant to Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code, which provides:
SEC. 35. Powers and Functions. — The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. x x x It shall have the following specific powers and functions:
(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.
The People is the real party in interest in criminal cases and only the OSG can represent the People in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court. 73 Thus, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by the Solicitor General. Nevertheless, the private complainant or the offended party may question such acquittal or dismissal but only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. 74 However, when the OSG in its comment neither prays that the petition be granted nor expressly ratifies and adopts the petition as its own, the rule on personality and legal standing must be upheld. 75
In the case at bar, the RTC granted petitioners' demurrer to evidence, which led to their acquittal. It bears stressing that the petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing such acquittal before the CA was not filed by the OSG, but by respondent, who is the father of the deceased. Notably, in its comment, 76 the OSG did not adopt respondent's petition as its own, or pray that the petition be granted. 77 On the contrary, the OSG prayed for the dismissal of the petition for certiorari and mandamus for failure to comply with the Rules of Court and for lack of merit. 78 Applying the above-mentioned principles, the rule on legal standing must be upheld. The case of Bangayan v. Bangayan79 is instructive:
A perusal of the petition for certiorari filed by Sally Go before the CA discloses that she sought reconsideration of the criminal aspect of the case. Specifically, she prayed for the reversal of the trial court's order granting petitioners' demurrer to evidence and the conduct of a full blown trial of the criminal case. Nowhere in her petition did she even briefly discuss the civil liability of petitioners. It is apparent that her only desire was to appeal the dismissal of the criminal case against the petitioners. Because bigamy is a criminal offense, only the OSG is authorized to prosecute the case on appeal. Thus, Sally Go did not have the requisite legal standing to appeal the acquittal of the petitioners.
Sally Go was mistaken in her reading of the ruling in Merciales. First, in the said case, the OSG joined the cause of the petitioner, thereby meeting the requirement that criminal actions be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. Second, the acquittal of the accused was done without due process and was declared null and void because of the nonfeasance on the part of the public prosecutor and the trial court. There being no valid acquittal, the accused therein could not invoke the protection of double jeopardy.
In this case, however, neither the Solicitor General nor the City Prosecutor of Caloocan City joined the cause of Sally Go, much less consented to the filing of a petition for certiorari with the appellate court. Furthermore, she cannot claim to have been denied due process because the records show that the trial court heard all the evidence against the accused and that the prosecution had formally offered the evidence before the court granted the demurrer to evidence. Thus, the petitioners' acquittal was valid, entitling them to invoke their right against double jeopardy. 80 (Emphases supplied)
Furthermore, remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings will place the petitioners in double jeopardy. In People v. Sandiganbayan, 81 this Court emphasized that generally, the grant of a demurrer to evidence operates as an acquittal and is, thus, final and unappealable, to wit:
The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such as the one at bar, is "filed after the prosecution had rested its case," and when the same is granted, it calls "for an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and its sufficiency to 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. 82 (Emphasis supplied)
However, if the trial court gravely abused its discretion such as when the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or the trial was a sham, double jeopardy will not attach. 83 Grave abuse of discretion has been defined as that capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. It must be "patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a 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 power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility." 84 To prove such, the party assailing the acquittal must be able to show that the trial court gravely abused its discretion such that it was deprived of its authority to dispense justice. 85
In the present case, there is no showing that the trial court gravely abused its discretion. The fact that the trial court adopted its findings in the proceedings for the petition for bail in deciding the demurrer to evidence is not by itself tantamount to grave abuse of discretion. Since the prosecution adopted the evidence including the formal offer of exhibits made during the presentation of evidence in the petition for bail as the prosecution's formal offer of exhibits in the trial proper, and even presented additional witnesses, it cannot be gainsaid that it was denied the opportunity to present its evidence. The trial court judiciously and extensively considered the evidence presented by the prosecution. After all, establishing that the guilt of the accused is strong rests on the prosecution and the accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proven. However, the prosecution failed to discharge this burden.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The September 30, 2016 Decision and January 19, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 138695 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Resolutions dated April 14, 2014 and September 17, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 82 of Odiongan, Romblon in Criminal Case No. OD-1940, granting the demurrer to evidence of petitioners Ramon Gabuna, Dedo Gacura, Charlito Rodeo, Oscar de Jesus, Joseph Villanueva, Aniceto Villanueva, and Jericho Lilang, and dismissing the case against them, are hereby REINSTATED.
Let entry of judgment be immediately issued.
The Court NOTES the letter dated October 12, 2020 of Ms. Marissa A. De Vera, Records Officer I, Archives Section, Judicial Records Division, Court of Appeals, Manila transmitting the rollo of CA-G.R. SP No. 138695 in compliance with the Resolution dated September 16, 2020.
SO ORDERED."(J. Rosario designated additional Member per November 15, 2021 Raffle vice J. Inting who recused himself as his sister, J. Socorro B. Inting, had prior participation in the Court of Appeals; J. Gaerlan and J. Dimaampao, on official leave)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-47.
2.Id. at 49-57. Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, (now a retired Member of the Court).
3.Id. at 59-60.
4.Id. at 268-271.
5.Id. at 282.
6.Id. at 271.
7.Id. at 60.
8.Id. at 50.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 63-66.
11.Id. at 50.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 50-51.
14.Id. at 51.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.Id.
20.Id. at 238-243.
21.Id. at 51.
22.Id. at 253-277.
23.Id. at 265.
24.Id. at 261.
25.Id.
26.Id. at 263.
27.Id. at 264.
28.Id. at 264-265.
29.Id.
30.Id.
31.Id. at 268-271.
32. Records, p. 258.
33.Rollo, pp. 71-85.
34.Id. at 271.
35.Id. at 269-270.
36.Id. at 270.
37.Id. at 270-271.
38.Id. at 272-277.
39.Id. at 282.
40.Id. at 283-297.
41.Id. at 299-300.
42.Id. at 301-313.
43.Id. at 326-395.
44.Id. at 388-393.
45.Id.
46.Id.
47.Id. at 333-334.
48.Id.
49.Id. at 334.
50.Id. at 334-335.
51.Id. at 350-352.
52.Id. at 355-371.
53.Id. at 372-374.
54.Id. at 49-57.
55.Id. at 57.
56.Id. at 53.
57.Id. at 56.
58.Id.
59.Id.
60.Id.
61.Id.
62.Id. at 11.
63.Id. at 11-15.
64.Id. at 15-27.
65.Id.
66.Id.
67.Id.
68.Id.
69.Id.
70.Id. at 28-32.
71.Id. at 33-35.
72.Id. at 35-41.
73.Jimenez v. Judge Sorongon, 700 Phil. 316, 325 (2012).
74.Villareal v. Aliga, 724 Phil. 47, 57 (2014).
75.Id. at 66.
76. CA rollo, pp. 269-278.
77.Id. at 270-276.
78.Id. at 277.
79. 675 Phil. 656 (2011).
80.Id. at 665-666.
81. 488 Phil. 293 (2004).
82.Id. at 309-310.
83.Sanvicente v. People, 441 Phil. 139 (2002).
84.People v. Court of Appeals, 368 Phil. 169, 180 (1999).
85.Sanvicente v. People, supra at 148.