Trinidad v. Nexus Petroleum, Inc.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 248748-49. May 10, 2021.]

GEMMA P. TRINIDAD, petitioner, vs. NEXUS PETROLEUM, INC., REPRESENTED BY ATTY. MAXIMA MODESTO JOEL C. FLORES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 10, 2021, which reads as follows:

G.R. Nos. 248748-49 (Gemma P. Trinidad v. Nexus Petroleum, Inc., Represented by Atty. Maxima Modesto Joel C. Flores). — Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, assailing the Decision 1 dated July 3, 2018 and the Resolution 2 dated August 8, 2019 rendered by the Court of Appeals, which remanded the proceedings for the estafa case filed against petitioner Gemma Trinidad (petitioner) for reception of additional evidence, thereby setting aside the pronouncement of the dismissal of the case filed against her by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 133 of Makati City.

Facts

Respondent Nexus Petroleum, Inc. (respondent) is engaged in the business of supplying refined petroleum products, with petitioner as its chief operating officer and treasurer. Allegedly, petitioner took from the corporation the total amount of Two Hundred Forty Million Four Hundred Eighty-Nine Thousand and Six Hundred Pesos (P240,489,600.00) when she took advantage of the credit line facilities extended to respondent by several banks. 3

As a result, petitioner was charged with the crime of estafa before the RTC. Upon arraignment, she entered a plea of not guilty, 4 while respondent expressed its intent to file separate cases to prosecute the civil aspect of the case. 5 Pre-trial was conducted and a pre-trial order was issued, providing, among others, the list of witnesses for the prosecution, as well as their scheduled dates of presentation. 6

However, two of those listed in the pre-trial order were not able to testify because one was supposedly out of the country, while the other manifested that he was no longer willing to testify. On this ground, the prosecution filed an Urgent Motion for Leave, praying that the RTC allow it to present additional witnesses and for the inclusion of additional exhibits in the pre-trial order. This was denied in the Order dated November 11, 2016. 7 Instead, the RTC required the prosecution to file its formal offer of evidence. Petitioner filed a Motion for Voluntary Inhibition against Judge Carlito Calpatura 8 (Judge Calpatura), but the same was denied. However, Judge Calpatura eventually decided to voluntarily inhibit in an Order dated December 1, 2016. The case was re-raffled to RTC Branch 133, presided by Judge Elpidio Calis (Judge Calis). 9 An Urgent Motion for Inhibition 10 against the concerned city prosecutor was also filed and the latter recused herself from the case. 11

On December 6, 2016, the RTC admitted the formal offer of evidence submitted by the prosecution. 12 On December 21, 2016, respondent filed an Omnibus Motion, praying for the reconsideration of the Order dated November 11, 2016 and for the striking out of the formal offer from the records of the case after the voluntary inhibition of Judge Calpatura in the case. 13 Respondent also prayed for the reconsideration of the Order dated December 6, 2016, which admitted the formal offer of the prosecution. Meanwhile, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to file Demurrer to Evidence. In Omnibus Order dated January 27, 2017, the RTC denied the Omnibus Motion filed by respondent, but granted petitioner's Motion for Leave to file Demurrer to Evidence. 14

Consequently, respondent filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, 15 questioning the RTC Orders dated November 11, 2016 and December 6, 2016, and the Omnibus Order dated January 27, 2017. The petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 149858. 16 After filing the petition for certiorari, respondent, without the conformity of the public prosecutor, filed before the RTC an Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings. 17 In the meantime, petitioner proceeded and filed her Demurrer to Evidence on February 3, 2017. 18

Ruling of the RTC

In the Consolidated Order 19 dated March 22, 2017, the RTC denied respondent's Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings and acquitted petitioner of the charge, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby issues the following:

1. The Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings dated March 6, 2017 is DENIED.

2. The Demurrer of Evidence dated February 3, 2017 is GRANTED and accordingly, accessed GEMMA P. TRINIDAD is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of Estafa under Article 351 [1][b] of the Revised Penal Code. Criminal Case Nos. 16-709 to 723 are hereby DISMISSED on account that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of herein accused beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Accused Trinidad's cash bail bond in the amount of Php300,000.00 as per O.R. No. 4562266 dated May 4, 2016 is hereby CANCELLED and returned to the accused or whoever posted the same, unless she should be detained by reason of other lawful causes.

SO ORDERED.20

Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in the RTC Order 21 dated June 13, 2017 and Amended Order 22 dated June 20, 2017.

Thereafter, respondent elevated the Consolidated Order before the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari.23 The said Petition was docketed as SP No. 152160. 24 Then in a Resolution 25 dated September 14, 2017, the Court of Appeals ordered the consolidation of the two (2) petitions for certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. SP Nos. 149858 and 152160.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In the assailed Decision dated July 3, 2018, the Court of Appeals granted the consolidated petitions for certiorari filed by respondent, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the consolidated petitions for certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 149858 and CA-G.R. SP No. 152160 are hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, assailed Orders dated November 11, 2016 and January 27, 2017, as well as the Consolidated Order of March 22, 2017, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The instant case is hereby REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED. 26

The Court of Appeals found that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was the proper remedy to question a verdict of acquittal. 27 It stated that said petition for certiorari may be availed of to correct an erroneous acquittal, which must show that grave abuse of discretion was committed by the RTC, which respondent was able to prove. 28 The Court of Appeals thus found cogent reason to recall and set aside the acquittal of petitioner and to remand the case for further proceedings. It stated that jurisdictional errors were committed by RTC Judges Calpatura and Calis when the right of the prosecution to present additional evidence was disregarded. It explained that the RTC judges set aside the right of the prosecution to present additional evidence "in the guise of championing the speedier processing and adjudication of cases as provided under the Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases in Pilot Courts." Unfortunately, it found that their strict adherence to procedural rules resulted in the serious prejudice of respondent. 29 Hence, the Consolidated Order dated March 22, 2017 was found to have been issued in excess of jurisdiction when it granted petitioner's Demurrer to Evidence. The same was a void judgment, which deprived respondent of its right to be heard and to due process. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution dated August 8, 2019. 30

Hence, the instant petition, which merited a Comment dated February 26, 2020, essentially echoing the findings of the Court of Appeals and the RTC. 31

The issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals erred in issuing the assailed decision and resolution.

Discussion

After a judicious review of the case, the Court resolves to deny the instant petition and affirm the assailed Decision dated July 3, 2018 and Resolution dated August 8, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 149858 and 152160 for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in issuing the same.

The Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65

"In our jurisdiction, We adhere to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable." 32 The grant of a demurrer to evidence operates as an acquittal and is, thus, final and unappealable. As explained in Asistio v. People: 33

The demurrer of evidence in criminal cases, 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 rule on double jeopardy, however, is not without exceptions, namely: (1) where there has been deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a mistrial, or (2) where there has been a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances." 34

This Court expounds on this rule in People v. Alejandro, 35 to wit:

[An] instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted with wave abuse of 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 acquittal, the petitioner in such an extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.

Therefore, a judgment of acquittal may only be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules. 36

In this case, We find no cogent reason to disturb the Court of Appeals' finding that grave abuse of discretion attended the issuance of the RTC's assailed Orders. The prosecution and respondent were deprived of their right to due process and they were arbitrarily prohibited from presenting additional evidence to present the merits of their case.

The offended party can question the

There were instances when the Court has allowed the private complainant to appeal the dismissal of the criminal case sans authority from the public prosecutor or the solicitor general.

The ruling of this Court in BDO Unibank v. Pua37 is particularly instructive:

The Court has consistently ruled that "only the OSG may bring or defend actions in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals." The aforesaid is subject to two exceptions where a private complainant or offended party in a criminal case may file a petition directly with this Court, to wit: (1) when there is denial of due process of law to the prosecution and the State or its agents refuse to act on the case to the prejudice of the State and the private offended party; and (2) when the private offended party questions the civil aspect of a decision of a lower court.

In the same vein, the exception to the rule also applies "when there is grave error committed by the judge, or when the interest of substantial justice so require." 38

In the present case, We find that the exception applies as there was a denial of due process on the part of the prosecution when the trial court hastily granted the petitioner's Demurrer of Evidence to the former's prejudice. Grave error was committed by the trial court judge in issuing the Consolidated Order dated March 22, 2017. Clearly, in the interest of substantial justice, respondent's move to question the acquittal of petitioner, even without the conformity of the OSG, is permissible under the present circumstance.

The Court of Appeals correctly found

In the instant case, We agree with the Court of Appeals that the prosecution should have been allowed by the trial court to present additional witnesses and evidence in the interest of substantial justice. The non-inclusion of the prosecution's proposed witness in the pre-trial order should not prevent the prosecution to fully present its side and for the case to be disposed of on the merits.

"As a rule, technicality and procedural imperfection should not serve as bases of decisions. In that way, the ends of justice would be served." 39 More, "to prevent injustice, it is a better policy to dispose of a case on the merits rather than on a technicality, affording every party-litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his or her cause." 40

In the recent case of Latogan v. People, 41 the Court held that:

The Court is fully aware that procedural rules are not to be simply disregarded as they insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. Nonetheless, it is equally true that courts are not enslaved by technicalities. They have the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to speedily put an end to litigation and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard. Cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses.

Respondent is not guilty of Forum Shopping

Anent petitioner's claim of forum shopping, the same is likewise bereft of merit.

In the case of Ignacio v. Office of the City Treasurer, 42 the Court defined forum shopping, thus:

Forum shopping is the act of litigant who repetitively availed of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues, either pending in or already resolved by some other court, to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then in another.

Further, in BF Citiland Corp. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 43 the Court also held:

To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most important factor to ask is whether the element of litis pendentia is present, or whether a final judgment in one case will not amount to res judicata in another. Otherwise stated, the test for parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought. If a situation of litis pendentia or res judicata arises by virtue of a party's commencement of a judicial remedy identical to one which already exists (either pending or already resolved), then the forum shopping infraction is committed.

Here, the causes of action differed. Likewise, there is no showing that respondent deliberately availed of several judicial remedies to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable decision. To stress, respondent filed before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 149858, a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, to question the RTC Orders dated November 11, 2016 and December 06, 2016, and the Omnibus Order dated January 27, 2017. Considering, however, that there was a subsequent issuance of the RTC granting the Demurrer to Evidence and acquitting petitioner, as shown in the Consolidated Order dated March 22, 2017, 44 respondent had no choice but to file a separate petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals to question the petitioner's acquittal. It was clearly the only available remedy to it. This gave rise to the petition before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 152160. The Court of Appeals, in the Resolution dated September 14, 2017, even ordered the consolidation of the two (2) Petitions for Certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. SP Nos. 149858 and 152160. 45 Clearly, while the two (2) petitions were related and had similarities, there was a separate cause of action that accrued, which gave rise to the filing of a petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 152160. This being the case, We are not inclined to rule that respondent resorted to forum shopping.

In view of the foregoing, We find that no error was committed by the Court of Appeals in issuing the assailed Decision dated July 3, 2018 and Resolution dated August 8, 2019, respectively in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 149858 and 152160. The remand of the cases to the trial court is thus proper.

SO ORDERED.(J. Zalameda, designated additional member vice J. Inting per Raffle dated April 21, 2021)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of this Court) concurring; rollo, pp. 54-73.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Pablito A. Perez concurring; id. at 74-76.

3.Rollo, pp. 56-57.

4.Id. at 112.

5.Id. at 113-114.

6.Id. at 115-118.

7.Id. at 119.

8.Id. at 439-446.

9.Id. at 453.

10.Id. at 447-451.

11.Id. at 452.

12.Id. at 453.

13.Id. at 454-468.

14.Id. at 121-123.

15.Id. at 520-554.

16.Id. at 520-554.

17.Id. at 513-519.

18.Id. at 124-149.

19.Id. at 150-156.

20.Id. at 156.

21.Id. at 157-158.

22.Id. at 159-161.

23.Id. at 555-579.

24.Id. at 63.

25.Id.

26.Id. at 72.

27.Id. at 65.

28.Id. at 66,

29.Id. at 67.

30.Id. at 75-76.

31.Id. at 184-210.

32.People v. Alejandro, 823 Phil. 684, 691 (2018).

33. 758 Phil. 485, 503-504 (2015).

34.People v. Alejandro,supra note 32, at 692.

35.Id. at 693.

36.Id.

37. G.R. No. 230923, July 8, 2019.

38.Morillo v. People, et al., 775 Phil. 192, 211 (2015).

39.Latogan v. People, G.R. No. 238298, January 22, 2020.

40.Illusorio v. Illusorio, 829 Phil. 492, 499 (2018).

41.Supra note 39, at 6.

42. 817 Phil. 1133, 1149 (2017).

43. G.R. No. 224912, October 16, 2019.

44.Rollo, p. 158.

45.Id. at 63.