FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236510. April 4, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND EMELDA NAPONE DAYOLA, petitioners,vs. ARNOLFO S. DAYOLA AND HON. EDUARDO S. CASALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 1, BUTUAN CITY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 4, 2018, which reads as follows: SDAaTC
"G.R. No. 236510 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND EMELDA NAPONE DAYOLA, Petitioners, v. ARNOLFO S. DAYOLA AND HON. EDUARDO S. CASALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 1, BUTUAN CITY, Respondents.
In this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, petitioner Emelda Napone-Dayola (Emelda), through private counsel, seeks to annul and set aside: 1) the Order dated July 21, 2017 of Judge Eduardo S. Casals (Judge Casals), Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1, Butuan City, which submitted for decision Criminal Case No. 17273, entitled People of the Philippines v. Arnolfo S. Dayola, for violation of Republic Act No. 9262, upon admitting respondent Arnolfo S. Dayola's (Arnolfo) exhibits in evidence while also stating that petitioner Emelda failed to file her comments/opposition; and 2) the Judgment issued by the same court acquitting respondent Arnolfo in Criminal Case No. 17273. Petitioner Emelda alleged that the July 21, 2017 Order was not served upon the prosecution which violated her right to due process. The assailed Order and Judgment were thus issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction by violating her right to due process.
The Court resolves to DISMISS this petition for failure of petitioner Emelda to observe the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, for raising factual matters, and for lack of legal standing to file the present petition.
First, the Court has repeatedly emphasized that the rule on hierarchy of courts is an important component of the orderly administration of justice and not imposed merely for whimsical and arbitrary reasons. 1 Although the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the RTC and the Court of Appeals to issue writs of certiorari, this should not be taken as granting parties the absolute and unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which an application will be directed. Direct resort to this Court is allowed only if there are special, important and compelling reasons clearly and specifically spelled out in the petition, which are not present in this case. 2 acEHCD
Second, this petition relies on the allegation of denial of due process on the premise that the assailed Order was not served upon the prosecution. It is elementary that the Court is not a trier of facts. Moreover, factual matters cannot be normally inquired into by the Supreme Court in a certiorari proceeding. 3
Finally, the petition should be dismissed for want of legal standing on the part of petitioner Emelda to file the same through her private counsel. The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court is solely vested in the Office of the Solicitor General. The authority given to the private prosecutor by the public prosecutor is of no moment. It is settled that "the fiscal represents the People of the Philippines in the prosecution of offenses before the trial courts at the metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, municipal circuit trial courts, and the regional trial courts. However, when such criminal actions are brought to the Court of Appeals or this Court, it is the Solicitor General who must represent the People of the Philippines not the fiscal." 4 The private complainant or the offended party may question such acquittal or dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. 5 A perusal of the reliefs prayed for in the petition clearly shows that petitioner Emelda is seeking the reversal of the acquittal of the accused, i.e., the criminal aspect of the case, and not the civil aspect.
SO ORDERED." SERENO, C.J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Cleric of Court
Footnotes
1.De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017.
2.Saldariega v. Panganiban, 758 Phil. 244, 250 (2015).
3.People v. Terrado, 580 Phil. 79, 86 (2008).
4.People v. Duca, 618 Phil. 154, 164-165 (2009).
5.Bautista v. Cuneta-Pangilinan, 698 Phil. 110, 123 (2012).