Constitutional Law - Double Jeopardy 108-114

8/18/2019 Constitutional Law - Double Jeopardy 108-114

1/65

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 128540. April 15, 1998]

EDUARDO CUISON, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEAS !"# T$E

PEOPE OF T$E P$IIPPINES, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PANGANI%AN, J .&

The constitutional proscription of double jeopardy is not violated by a Court of

Appeals order reuirin! the trial court to pro"ul!ate a decision sentencin! the accused

to i"prison"ent even if# earlier# the sa"e decision has been pro"ul!ated in re!ard only

to the pay"ent of the "odified civil inde"nity arisin! fro" the sa"e cri"inal

act$Other%ise stated# the pro"ul!ation of only one part of the decision# i.e.# the liability

for civil inde"nity# is not a bar to the subseuent pro"ul!ation of the other part# the

i"position of the cri"inal accountability$

T'( C!)(

This is the !ist of this Courts resolution of the petition for revie% on certiorari #

assailin! the Nove"ber '(() Decision*'+ of the Court of Appeals*,+ in CA-.R S/ No$

0'1()$ The dispositive portion of the said Decision# %hich set aside the April ',# '(()Resolution*2+ of the Re!ional Trial Court of 3in!ayen# /an!asinan# 4ranch 2(# *0+ reads as

follo%s5

678R8FOR8# pre"ises considered# the Resolution dated April ',#

'(() of the respondent 9ud!e is hereby SET ASIDE and he is ordered

to set ane% the pro"ul!ation of the decision of the Court of Appeals

affir"in! the jud!"ent of conviction and sentencin! the accused to

serve i"prison"ent for the duration stated in the decision of the said

respondent Court dated February :# '(;($ The order for the pay"ent of the civil liabilities has been pro"ul!ated earlier$

SO ORD8R8D$*&+

The RTC Resolution# set aside by the Court of Appeals# disposed5

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn1


2/65

678R8FOR8# in vie% of the fore!oin! considerations# the Court finds

that the


3/65

The accused elevated the decision on a petition for revie% doceted as

.$R$ Nos$ '1;(;&-;) but the Supre"e Court denied the said petition

on Dece"ber '# '((2$

The case %as re"anded to the Re!ional Trial Court of /an!asinan >4r$2(? for pro"ul!ation of the decision$ 7o%ever# respondent 9ud!e

pro"ul!ated *on April 0# '((&+ the decision of *the Court of Appeals+

only %ith respect to the "odified civil liability of the accused but did not

co""it the accused to jail to co""ence service of his sentence$

Asst$ City /rosecutor Abraha" 3$ Ra"os II reported the "atter to the

Solicitor .eneral and reuested that a "otion for clarification be filed

%ith this Court to clarify the decision dated 9uly 21# '(('$ On 9uly :#

'(( the Solicitor .eneral filed a =otion to Clarify Decision$ On Au!ust':# '(( *the Court of Appeals+ rendered a Resolution %hich states in

pertinent portions thereof5

In the dispositive portion of this Courts decision# 6e si"ply

"odified the appealed decision of the court a quo in one

respect only - the increase of the inde"nity to be paid by the

appellant to the heirs of the victi"s fro" /21#111$11

to /&1#111$11 as ruled in various cases includin! that cited in

Our decision# /eople vs$ Sison# ';( SCRA )02# )0)$

In vie% of the fore!oin!# it is ineluctable that the penalty i"posed

by the lo%er court %as not touched on at all by this Court

especially in the li!ht of *o+ur *o+bservation in the said decision# as

follo%s5

After a careful revie% of the evidence on records# this Court entertains no

doubt as to the participation of the accused-appellant in the shootin! of

Sapi!ao and Rulo Castro$ The court a quo has e@pressed the follo%in!findin!s in its decision# to %hich findin!s this Court accords the !reat %ei!ht

and respect such findin!s of the trial court are entitled to5

Conspiracy $ $ $ %as proven by the follo%in! circu"stances5

@@@ @@@ @@@


4/65

The follo%in! circu"stances sho%in! the seuence of events# the "ode or

"anner in %hich the offenses %ere perpetrated taen to!ether indicated that

the assailants cooperated and helped each other in the attain"ent of the

sa"e ai"$ >=e"orandu"# pp$ ,1-,'? >CA Decision# pp$ '0-')B Rollo# pp$ ',:-

',(?

Actin! on the afore-cited "otion to clarify decision# this Court hereby declares

that this Court had affir"ed the decision of the court a quo %ith re!ard to the

penalty of i"prison"ent i"posed in the said trial courts decision$

Respondent 9ud!e then set the pro"ul!ation of the decision ane%$ The

accused# ho%ever# filed a =otion to Set Aside /ro"ul!ation on the

follo%in! !rounds5

'$ That the jud!"ent in said case %as already pro"ul!ated on 0

April '((& and therefore there is nothin! to pro"ul!ate any"ore$

,$ To pursue %ith *sic+ the scheduled pro"ul!ation %ill violate the

accuseds constitutional ri!ht a!ainst jeopardy$

In a Resolution dated April ',# '(()# the respondent 9ud!e !ranted the

aforestated "otion holdin!5

No%# the uestion is5 =ay the resolution of the 7onorable Court

of Appeals pro"ul!ated on ': Au!ust '((& %hich clarified the

dispositive portion of its ori!inal decision# be considered as an

a"end"ent# alteration or "odification of the decision 7ere# %e

"ust not for!et the basic rule that in the e@ecution of the

jud!"ent# it is the dispositive portion of the decision %hich

controls$ 6e cannot also for!et that# as already "entioned

above# %e have already pro"ul!ated the said decision by

readin! to the accused the dispositive portion# and that to thebest of our no%led!e# he had already co"plied there%ith by

payin! the da"a!es %hich %ere a%arded$ It "ay be relevant at

this point in ti"e# to cite the decision of the 7onorable Supre"e

Court in the case of $(ir) o G(or-( %oill ). Co/r+ o

App(!l), 2 SCRA 9 that


5/65

7ad the Court of Appeals been "ore accurate and

precise in uotin! data fro" the records# it %ould have

arrived at the ri!ht conclusion

The 7onorable Court of Appeals cited the decision of the7onorable Supre"e Court in the case of /artola-9o vs$ CA# ,')

SCRA )(,# that5

6here there is an a"bi!uity caused by an o"ission or

"istae in the dispositive portion of the decision#

the S/pr(( Co/r+ "ay clarify such a"bi!uity by an

a"end"ent ((" !+(r +'( 3/#-("+ '!) (*o(

i"!l$ >e"phasis supplied?

The above decision is in consonance %ith the decision of the

7onorable Supre"e Court in the case of %/!" ). Co/r+ o

App(!l, et al .# ,2& SCRA 0,0 %herein the Supre"e Court said5

@ @ @ Thus the respondent Court stated# it is undisputed

that the Decision of the Court of Appeals @ @ @ had

beco"e final and e@ecutory$ Taen in this li!ht the

respondent court apparently did not err in l(!i"- +'(

i))/( /"r()ol(## a final decision bein! unrevie%ableand conclusive$

4ut jud!in! fro" the facts presented by this case# it is

beyond doubt that serious injustice %ill be co""itted if

strict adherence to procedural rules %ere to be

follo%ed$ It should be re"e"bered that rules of

procedure are but "ere tools desi!ned to facilitate the

attain"ent of justice# such that %hen ri!id application of

the rules %ould tend to frustrate rather than pro"otesubstantial justice# +'i) Co/r+ i) (po(r(# +o

)/)p("# i+) op(r!+io". >e"phasis supplied?

It %ould see" fro" the above pronounce"ents of the 7onorable

Supre"e Court therefore# that it "ay suspend the operation of


6/65

the rules of procedure by ir+/( o i+) r/l(6!7i"-

po(r. Certainly if the 7onorable Supre"e Court has the po%er

to pro"ul!ate the Rules of Court# then it has the po%er

to )/)p("# its operation in order to pro"ote substantial

justice$


7/65

on April 0# '((&$ 4esides# there is# lie%ise# nothin! to

pro"ul!ate in the Court of Appeals Resolution dated

February ,# '(() and "uch less in the alluded Au!ust

':# '((& Resolution of the Court of Appeals$

Indeed# the said Resolution did not authorie nor did it direct this

Court to re-pro"ul!ate the Decision$

On 9une ,;# '(()# the Solicitor .eneral# representin! the /eople of the

/hilippines# filed *before the Court of Appeals a+ petition

for certiorari and mandamus contendin! that the respondent 9ud!e

seriously erred and !ravely abused his discretion in refusin! to e@ecute

the penalty of i"prison"ent in spite *the Court of Appeals+ Decision of

9uly 21# '((' and Resolution of Au!ust ':# '((&$ 7e prays that theOrder dated April ',# '(() of respondent 9ud!e be nullified and the

penalty of i"prison"ent rendered a!ainst the accused be enforced$*)+

Ruling of the Appellate Court

In rulin! for the /eople# the Court of Appeals ratiocinated in this %ay5

Obviously# respondent 9ud!e %as of the belief that the penalty of

i"prison"ent %as not affir"ed by *the Court of Appeals+ althou!h it

increased the civil liability fro"/21#111$11 to /&1#111$11$ 7e failed to

reco!nie the fact that the only "odification "ade by *the Court of

Appeals+ on the decision *%as+ to increase the civil liability# %hich %ould

not have been i"posed if the accused %as not found !uilty of the

char!e$ 7ad he looed carefully into the te@t of the decision he %ould

have found that *the Court of Appeals+ affir"ed the decision of

conviction# as borne out by the follo%in! portions of said decision5

After a careful revie% of the evidence on record# this Courtentertains no doubt as to the participation of the accused-

appellant in the shootin! of Sapi!ao and Rulo Castro$ The

Court a quo has e@pressed the follo%in! findin!s in its decision#

to %hich findin!s this Court accords the !reat %ei!ht and respect

such findin!s of the trial court are entitled to5

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn6


8/65

Conspiracy $$$ %as proven by the follo%in! circu"stances5

'$ Accused 8duardo Cuison %as seen to!ether occupyin! the

sa"e table %ith S!t$ 4ustarde and S!t$ Castro drinin! beer at

the terrace upon the arrival of 3eo /etete and his co"panionsB

,$ They left the terrace of the Tropical 7ut about '1 to '& "inutes

after the arrival of Rulo Castro# Rafael Sapi!ao# 3eo /etete and

A!ardo Reyes and boarded the sa"e yello% car o%ned and

driven by accused 8duardo Cuison$

2$ Accused 8duardo Cuison %as seen by Ronald 3i!ayo# a

resident of /oblacion# 4u!allon# /an!asinan# a disinterested

%itness in the evenin! of =ay ,:# '(;) infront >sic? of the houseof said accused 8duardo Cuison in /oblacion# 4u!allon#

/an!asinan$ Accused 8duardo Cuison ali!hted fro" his car#

proceeded to his house and after co"in! out of his house %as

seen holdin! a 0& >sic? caliber and a carbine pistol$ 8duardo

Cuison called for his brother 6arlin! to %ho" he handed the

carbine pistol and received by the latter$

8duardo Cuison sent Do"y Cuison to call for 4ot Cuison$ 6hen

4ot Cuison arrived# he# 6arlin!# Do"y# 8duardo Cuison and t%oothers inside the car proceeded to%ards the north$ Obviously#

these t%o %ere S!t$ Castro and S!t$ 4ustarde$

0$


9/65

)$ After Sapi!ao fell do%n# S!t$ Castro# 6arlin! Cuison# 8duardo

Cuison# 4ot and Do"y Cuison turned at *sic+ Sapi!ao obviously

to see to it and "ae sure Sapi!ao %as already deadB

:$ After ascertainin! that Sapi!ao %as shot dead# accused8duardo Cuison called for Rulo Castro to co"e outside the

restaurant and %hen Rulo Castro e"er!ed at the door# accused

8duardo Cuison# 6arlin! Cuison# 4ot Cuison# Do"y Cuison and

S!t$ 4ustarde si"ultaneously pointed their !uns and shot at Rulo

Castro hittin! the latterB

;$ Accused 8duardo Cuison and 6arlin! Cuison are brothers and

uncles of 4ot and Do"y Cuison$ 8duardo Cuison bein! a

a!a%ad enjoyed "oral influence upon his brother 6arlin! andhis t%o nephe%s 4ot and Do"yB

($ S!ts$ 4ustarde and Castro and Ea!a%ad Cuison ne% each

other before the incidentB

'1$After shootin! the victi"s to death# the accused Cuisons %ent

a%ay fro" the scene of the cri"e on board the sa"e car$

The follo%in! circu"stances sho%in! the seuence of events#the "ode o*r+ "anner in %hich the offenses %ere perpetrated

taen to!ether indicated that the assailants cooperated and

helped each other in the attain"ent of the sa"e

ai"$ >=e"orandu"# pp$ ,1-,'?

As held by the Supre"e Court in the case of /eople vs$

Col"an# et al. && O$.$ ,2(, >cited in Re!alado# Re"edial 3a%

Co"pendiu"# ;; ed$# Vol$ ,# p$ &)1?#

Conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence of

the acts char!ed# but "ay and !enerally "ust be proved

by a nu"ber of indefinite acts# conditions and

circu"stances %hich vary accordin! to the purpose to be

acco"plished$ If it be proved that t%o or "ore persons


10/65

ai"ed by their acts to%ards the acco"plish"ent of the

sa"e unla%ful object# each doin! a part so that their

acts# thou!h apparently independent# %ere in fact

connected and cooperative# indicatin! a closeness of

personal association and a concurrence of senti"ent# aconspiracy "ay be inferred thou!h no actual "eetin!

a"on! the" for concerted "eans is proved >/eople vs$

Col"an# et. al.# && O$.$ ,2(2?$

In the appealed decision# the trial court had ordered the accused-

appellant to inde"nify the heirs of Rafael Sapi!ao *in+ the a"ount

of /21#111$11 and to *sic+ the heirs of Rulo Castro also the

a"ount of /21#111$11 >Decision# p$ ,0?$ In accordance %ith the

ne% policy of the Supre"e Court on this "atter# the above-specified a"ount of /21#111$11 should be increased

to /&1#111$11 >/eople vs$ Sison# ';( SCRA )02# )0)?$

It is absurd to conclude that *the Court of Appeals+ increased the civil

liability in accordance %ith ne% rulin!s of the Supre"e Court %ithout

findin! that the accused *%as+ !uilty of the offense of ho"icide$ Thus#

the pro"ul!ation of the civil liability only and o"ission of the cri"inal

liability is an error$

Further"ore# *the Court of Appeals+ has clarified the a"bi!uity in the

dispositive portion throu!h its Resolution dated Au!ust ':# '((& %hich

cate!orically stated that the court affir"ed the decision of the

respondent court %ith respect to the penalty of i"prison"ent i"posed

upon the accused$

This clarification is not an a"end"ent# "odification# correction or

alteration to an already final decision$ It is conceded that such cannot

be done any"ore$ The Court of Appeals si"ply stated in cate!orical

ter"s %hat it obviously "eant in its decision - - that the conviction of

the accused is affir"ed %ith the "odification that the civil liability is

increased$ The dispositive portion of the decision "ay not have used

the e@act %ords but a readin! of the decision can lead to no other

conclusion$


11/65

It certainly %ould be ridiculous to allo% the accused to !o scot-free after

payin! the heirs the civil inde"nity i"posed by the Court for his

participation in the act of illin! the t%o >,? victi"s in these cases#

because of a %ron! interpretation of a decision$*:+

7ence# this appeal$*;+

T'( I))/()

In this appeal# /etitioner 8duardo Cuison raises the follo%in! assi!n"ent of errors5

I$ The Respondent Court seriously erred and !ravely abused its

discretion in not holdin! that the Solicitor .eneral failed to establish the

reuisites for the issuance of the e@traordinary %rit of certiorari $

II$ The Respondent Court seriously erred and !ravely abused its

discretion in not holdin! that the Solicitor .eneral failed to sho% the

e@istence of the ele"ents for the issuance of a 6rit of Mandamus$

III$ The Respondent Court seriously erred and !ravely abused its

discretion in not holdin! that the pro"ul!ation of April 0# '((& cannot

be "odified# over objection of the accused$

IV$ The Respondent Court seriously erred and !ravely abused itsdiscretion in not holdin! that the filin! of the /etition

for Certiorari and Mandamus dated 9une ,;# '((& by the Solicitor

.eneral violates the constitutional ri!ht of the accused a!ainst double

jeopardy$

V$ The Respondent Court seriously erred and !ravely abused its discretion in

decidin! as it did and in denyin! herein petitioners "otion for reconsideration$ *(+

Si"ply put# petitioner raises the follo%in! issues5 >'? %hether the %ritsof certiorari and mandamus %ere properly issued by the Court of Appeals# and >,?

%hether petitioners ri!ht a!ainst double jeopardy %as violated$

T'( Co/r+) R/li"-

The petition is utterly un"eritorious$

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn9


12/65

Fir)+ I))/(& Certiorari and Mandamus Justified

A petition for certiorari is allo%ed under Rule )& of the Rules of Court# provided the

follo%in! reuisites are present5 >'? the %rit is directed a!ainst a tribunal# a board or an

officer e@ercisin! judicial or uasi-judicial functionsB >,? such tribunal# board or officer

has acted %ithout or in e@cess of jurisdiction# or %ith !rave abuse of discretion

a"ountin! to lac or e@cess of jurisdictionB and >2? there is no appeal or any plain#

speedy and adeuate re"edy in the ordinary course of la%$ *'1+ .rave abuse of discretion

@ @ @ i"plies such capricious and %hi"sical e@ercise of jud!"ent as is euivalent to

lac of jurisdiction# or# in other %ords %here the po%er is e@ercised in an arbitrary or

despotic "anner by reason of passion or personal hostility# and it "ust be so patent and

!ross as to a"ount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perfor" the

duty enjoined or to act at all in conte"plation of la%$ *''+

/etitioner points out that the solicitor !enerals petition

for certiorari and mandamus before the Court of Appeals failed to sho% !rave abuse of

discretion in the assailed April ',# '(() Resolution of the trial court$ In the said

Resolution# the trial court declined to order the incarceration of petitioner and# thus#

effectively refused to pro"ul!ate the Au!ust ':# '((& CA Decision %hich# in turn#

clarified that the CAs earlier Decision dated 9uly 21# '((' "erely increased the a"ount

of inde"nity but did not delete the penalty of i"prison"ent$ In justifyin! its said Order#

the trial court insisted that it had already pro"ul!ated the 9uly 21# '((' CA Decision

%hen it ordered petitioner to pay the increased a"ount of inde"nity$ /etitioner ar!ues

that the trial courts Order# far fro" bein! %hi"sical# capricious or "alevolent# *%as+ valid

and substantial# to say the least# and the i"pu!ned *R+esolution %as issued after acareful deliberation and %ei!hin! of the facts# issues and points of applicable la%$ *',+

6e disa!ree$ 6hile its lan!ua!e "ay have been a little faulty# it is still uite obvious

that the Court of Appeals affir"ed the trial courts Decision convictin! /etitioner 8duardo

Cuison of double ho"icide$ The dispositive portion of the CA Decision# therefore# cannot

be construed to "ean that the appellate court "erely i"posed an inde"nity and deleted

the penalty of i"prison"ent$ The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision in

no %ay co""unicated that the appealed Decision of the trial court %as "odified only in

re!ard to the a"ount of inde"nity$ No%here could it be !leaned that the penalty of

i"prison"ent %as deleted$ In fact# the CA Decision and the entire records of this casecontain no le!al or factual basis for acuittin! petitioner or dis"issin! the cri"inal cases

a!ainst hi"$

In !rantin! petitioners "otion# the trial court jud!e capriciously and arbitrarily

decided not to pro"ul!ate the Court of Appeals 9uly 21# '((' Decision$ *'2+ 7e had no

discretion to refuseB his refusal %as thus a !larin! trans!ression of his jurisdiction$

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn13


13/65

6e "ust also e"phasie that %e dis"issed the petition uestionin! the Court of

Appeals 9uly 21# '((' Decision# thereby affir"in! the conviction of petitioner$ The trial

courts assailed April ',# '(() Resolution %as therefore tanta"ount to overrulin! a

judicial pronounce"ent of the hi!hest Court of the land affir"in! the jud!"ent of

conviction of respondent Court and un"istaably a very !rave abuse of discretion$ *'0+

=anifestly erroneous then is the trial jud!es justification that he has previously

pro"ul!ated the Court of Appeals Decision on April 0# '((&$ As already stated# the

penalty i"posed by the Court of Appeals %as i"prison"ent plus a hi!her a"ount of civil

inde"nity$ In orderin! only the pay"ent of the inde"nity# the trial court failed to e@ecute

the CA Decision in its entirety$ Not%ithstandin! the subseuent CA Decision clarifyin! --

and this Courts dis"issal of the petition uestionin! -- the said earlier CA Decision# the

trial court still ada"antly refused to do so$ The persistent refusal of the trial court is a

clear display of !rave abuse of discretion$

6e find "isleadin! the clai" of petitioner that the Court of Appeals itself

acno%led!ed that the latters 9uly 21# '((' Decision %as a"bi!uous and obscure$*'&+ Such clai" is bereft of factual basis$ No%here in its Resolution*')+ did the CA so

describe its previous Decision$ It "erely restated the i"port of its 9uly 21# '(('

Decision$ 8vidently# this %as either "isunderstood or distorted by the trial court# %hich

stated that it is ineluctable that the penalty i"posed by the lo%er court %as not touched

on at all by *the Court of Appeals+ @ @ @$ *':+

Further"ore# the Court of Appeals cannot be faulted for issuin! a %rit of mandamus#

in vie% of the trial courts refusal to perfor" its "inisterial duty of pro"ul!atin! theappellate courts Decision in its entirety$


14/65

/etitioner sub"its that the trial courts pro"ul!ation of the CA Decision on April 0#

'((& cannot be set aside and a second pro"ul!ation be ordered *,'+ because to do so

%ould contravene the prohibition a!ainst double jeopardy$*,,+ 7e contends that the

jud!"ent as pro"ul!ated on April 0# '((& has beco"e final *,2+ and that courts have thus

lost jurisdiction over the case$*,0+

To substantiate a clai" of double jeopardy# the follo%in! "ust be proven5

@ @ @ >'? a first jeopardy "ust have attached prior to the secondB >,? the

first jeopardy "ust have been validly ter"inatedB >2? the second

jeopardy "ust be for the sa"e offense# or the second offense includes

or is necessarily included in the offense char!ed in the first infor"ation#

or is an atte"pt to co""it the sa"e or is a frustration thereof >citations

o"itted?$

And le!al jeopardy attaches only5 >a? upon a valid indict"entB >b? before

a co"petent courtB >c? after arrai!n"entB >d? *%hen+ a valid plea *has+

been enteredB and >e? the case %as dis"issed or other%ise ter"inated

%ithout the e@press consent of the accused >citation o"itted?$*,&+

/etitioner contends that the pro"ul!ation by 9ud!e Ra"os on April 0# '((& of the

Respondent Courts decision of 9une 21# '((' by readin! its dispositive portion has

effectively ter"inated the cri"inal cases a!ainst the petitioner @ @ @$ *,)+ In other %ords#

petitioner clai"s that the first jeopardy attached at that point$

The Court is not persuaded$ As a rule# a cri"inal prosecution includes a civil action

for the recovery of inde"nity$*,:+ 7ence# a decision in such case disposes of both the

cri"inal as %ell as the civil liabilities of an accused$ 7ere# trial court pro"ul!ated only

the civil aspect of the case# but not the cri"inal$

As earlier observed# the pro"ul!ation of the CA Decision %as not co"plete$ In fact

and in truth# the pro"ul!ation %as not "erely inco"pleteB it %as also void$ In e@cess of

its jurisdiction# the trial jud!e rendered a substantially inco"plete pro"ul!ation on April

0# '(( and he repeated his "istae in his April ',# '(() Order$ 6e e"phasie that!rave abuse of discretion rendered the afore"entioned act of the trial court void$*,;+ Since the cri"inal cases have not yet been ter"inated# the first jeopardy has not yet

attached$ 7ence# double jeopardy cannot prosper as a defense$*,(+

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn29


15/65

6e "ust stress that Respondent Courts uestioned Decision did not "odify or

a"end its 9uly 21# '((' Decision$ It "erely ordered the pro"ul!ation of the jud!"ent of

conviction and the full e@ecution of the penalty it had earlier i"posed on petitioner$

Cases Cited Not Applicable

People vs. Hernando# Ramos vs. Hodges and Republic vs. Court of Appeals, cited

by petitioner# are not applicable because they refer either to the lo%er courts proceedin!

that is not void or to errors of jud!"ent# not to lac or e@cess or abuse of

jurisdiction$ Thus# in People vs. Hernando,*21+ the Court ruled that the uestioned

proceedin!s of the court a quo %ere not an absolute nullity as to render the jud!"ent of

acuittal null and void# considerin! that the prosecution %as not denied due

process$ In Ramos vs. Hodges*2'+ the Court found that the trial jud!es erroneous

conclusion "erely constituted errors of fact or of la%# and not of jurisdiction$ 3astly#

in Republic vs. Court of Appeals*2,+ the Court held that the lo%er court co""itted "erely

an error of jud!"ent and not an error of jurisdiction as there %as no clear sho%in! *that

it+ e@ercised its po%er in *an+ arbitrary or despotic "anner by reason of passion or

personal hostility# or that its act %as so patent and !ross as to a"ount to an evasion or

a virtual refusal to perfor" the duty enjoined or to act in conte"plation of la%$

!pilogue

This Court taes this occasion to re"ind "e"bers of the bench to be precise in

their ponencias# "ost especially in the dispositions thereof$ Accuracy and clarity in

substance and in lan!ua!e are revered objectives in decision-"ain!$

7avin! said that# %e also la"ent the trial courts convoluted atte"pt at sophistry#

%hich obviously enabled the petitioner to delay the service of his i"prison"ent and to

unnecessarily clo! the docets of this Court and of the Court of Appeals$ 7is 7onors

e@pressed desire to accept %ith "odesty the orders and decisions of the appellate court

%as# in truth and in fact# "erely a sarcastic prelude to his veiled rejection of the superior

courts order "odifyin! his earlier decision$ 7is sopho"oric justification of his refusal to

obey for fear of bein! found to be !rossly i!norant of the la% does not deserve one %hit

of sy"pathy fro" this Court$ 3ady 9ustice "ay be blindfolded but she is neither blind

nor naive$ She can distin!uish chicanery fro" %isdo"# fallacious ar!u"ent fro"co""on sense$

$EREFORE, the petition is hereby !"#! and the assailed Decision of the

Court of Appeals is A$$#RM!$ Double costs a!ainst petitioner$

SO ORDERED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/apr1998/128540.htm#_edn32


16/65

avide, %r. &C'airman(, )ellosillo, *itug, and +uisumbing , %%., concur .

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 127772. March 22, 2001]

ROBERTO P. ALMARIO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.

FLORENTINO A. TUASON, R., PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

AN! RI"AL COMMERCIAL BAN#ING CORP., respondents.

! E C I S I O N

$UISUMBING , J .%

This appeal by certiorari seeks to set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated

November !" !##$%!& and of 'anuary (" !##("%& in CA)*+,+ No+ S-)./!" 0hich denied the

petition for certiorari" prohibition and mandamus 0ith preliminary in1unction instituted by

petitioner a2ainst the 3on+ 4lorentino A+ Tuason" 'r+" in his capacity as -residin2 'ud2e of 5ranch

!/#" ,e2ional Trial Court of 6akati City" the ,i7al Commercial 5ankin2 Corporation 8,C5C9"

and the -eople of the -hilippines+%/& Involved in said petition 0ere the orders of 'ud2e 'aime D+

Discaya and 'ud2e Tuason dated October :" !##:%.& and April !!" !##$"%:& respectively" issued in

Criminal Cases Nos+ #!)$($!)$ 0hich petitioner claimed 0ere violative of his constitutional

ri2ht a2ainst double 1eopardy but 0hich respondent appellate court upheld+

The factual antecedents in these cases" as culled by the Court of Appeals" are as follo0s;

-etitioner is one of the accused in Criminal Case No+ #!)$($!" for estafa thru

falsification of public document" and Criminal Case No+ #!)$($" for estafa" 0ith

respondent ,C5C as the offended party in both cases+

The informations 0ere filed on October " !##+ After petitioners arrai2nment on

6arch !


17/65

The hearin2 set for 'une !" !##:" 0as postponed for lack of proof of notice to all the

accused and their counsel+ The hearin2 on 'uly !(" !##:" upon re>uest of private

prosecutor" and 0ithout ob1ection on the part of petitioners counsel" postponed to 'uly

." !##:+ 3o0ever" for lack of proof of service of notice upon petitioners three co)

accused" the hearin2 set for 'uly ." !##:" 0as like0ise cancelled and the cases 0erereset for trial on September < and :" !##:+

On September


18/65

0as set and the same 0as ordered terminated on October :" !##.+ On 'une !" !##:"

the case 0as set for initial presentation of evidence of the proof of service of the

notices to the accused and their respective counsels+ On 'uly !(" !##:" counsel for the

accused did not interpose ob1ection to private prosecutors motion to postpone due to

absence of 0itnesses+ On 'uly ." !##:" the trial could not proceed as" bein2 a 1ointtrial of three criminal cases" the three other accused 0ere not present+ There 0ere only

three settin2s from the date of termination of the pre)trial for the prosecution to

present evidence and the same 0ere postponed 0ith valid reasons+

The dismissal in the Order dated September uittal of

the accused since the ri2ht of the accused to speedy trial has not been violated" and its

dismissal havin2 been made upon the motion of the accused there is no double

1eopardy+

?3E,E4O,E" premises considered" the Order dated September


19/65

5efore us" petitioner maintains that the appellate court erred in sustainin2 the trial court

0hich" in turn" had 2ravely abused its discretion" amountin2 to lack of 1urisdiction" 0hen it

reconsidered the order 0hich dismissed the criminal cases a2ainst him+ -etitioner asserts that this

reversal 0as a violation of the doctrine of double 1eopardy" as the criminal cases 0ere initially

dismissed for an alle2ed violation of petitioners constitutional ri2ht to a speedy trial+ %(&

The issue for resolution is 0hether" in petitioners cases" double 1eopardy had set in so that

petitioners constitutional ri2ht a2ainst such 1eopardy had been violated+

Article III" Section ! of the !#uittal double 1eopardy+ ?hen an accused has been

convicted or ac>uitted" or the case a2ainst him dismissed or other0ise terminated

0ithout his eBpress consent by a court of competent 1urisdiction" upon a valid

complaint or information or other formal char2e sufficient in form and substance to

sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the char2e" the conviction or

ac>uittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another

prosecution for the offense char2ed" or for any attempt to commit the same orfrustration thereof" or for any offense 0hich necessarily includes or is necessarily

included in the offense char2ed in the former complaint or information+

B B B

Clearly" 1eopardy attaches only 8!9 upon a valid indictment" 89 before a competent court" 8/9

after arrai2nment" 8.9 0hen a valid plea has been entered" and 8:9 0hen the defendant 0as

convicted or ac>uitted" or the case 0as dismissed or other0ise terminated without the express

consent of the accused +%


20/65

1eopardy may attach 0hen the proceedin2s have been prolon2ed unreasonably" in violation of the

accuseds ri2ht to speedy trial+%!&

3ere 0e must in>uire 0hether there 0as unreasonable delay in the conduct of the trial so

that violation of the ri2ht to speedy trial of the accused" herein petitioner" resulted+ 4or it must be

recalled that in the application of the constitutional 2uaranty of the ri2ht to speedy disposition of

cases" particular re2ard must also be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case+%!!& 5oth the trial court and the appellate court noted that after pre)trial of petitioners case 0as

terminated on October !" !##." continuous trial 0as set in the months of December !##." and

'anuary and 4ebruary of !##:+ The scheduled hearin2s" ho0ever" 0ere cancelled 0hen the

presidin2 1ud2e 0as promoted to the Court of Appeals" and his successor as trial 1ud2e 0as not

immediately appointed" nor another 1ud2e detailed to his sala+

,ecords sho0 that on 'une !" !##:" hearin2 0as postponed for lack of proof of notice to

the accused and their counsel+ The hearin2 on 'uly !(" !##:" 0as postponed upon motion of the

private prosecutor 0ithout ob1ection from petitioners counsel+ The hearin2 set on 'uly ." !##:

0as reset" despite the presence of petitioner and his counsel" because of lack of proof of service

of notice to co)accused Dante Duldulao and the spouses Susencio and *uillerma Cru7+%!&

As observed by respondent appellate court" delay in the trial 0as due to circumstances

beyond the control of the parties and of the trial court+ The first and third postponements 0ere

clearly 1ustified on the 2round of lack of notice to accused" co)accused" and=or counsel+ Another

0as made 0ithout ob1ection from petitioners counsel+ 3o0ever" on September


21/65

speedy trial had not been infrin2ed+ ?here the ri2ht of the accused to speedy trial had not been

violated" there 0as no reason to support the initial order of dismissal+

It follo0s that petitioner cannot invoke the constitutional ri2ht a2ainst double 1eopardy 0hen

that order 0as reconsidered seasonably+%!$& 4or as petitioners ri2ht to speedy trial 0as not

trans2ressed" this eBception to the fifth element of double 1eopardy that the defendant 0as

ac>uitted or convicted" or the case 0as dismissed or other0ise terminated 0ithout the eBpress

consent of the accused 0as not met+ The trial courts initial order of dismissal 0as upon motion of

petitioners counsel" hence made 0ith the eBpress consent of petitioner+ That bein2 the case"

despite the reconsideration of said order" double 1eopardy did not attach+ As this Court had

occasion to rule in People vs. Tampal " 8.. SC,A 9 reiterated in People vs. Leviste"%!(& 0here

0e overturned an order of dismissal by the trial court predicated on the ri2ht to speedy trial

It is true that in an unbroken line of cases" 0e have held that the dismissal of cases on

the 2round of failure to prosecute is e>uivalent to an ac>uittal that 0ould bar further prosecution of the accused for the same offense+ It must be stressed" ho0ever" that

these dismissals 0ere predicated on the clear ri2ht of the accused to speedy

trial+ These cases are not applicable to the petition at bench considerin2 that the ri2ht

of the private respondents to speedy trial has not been violated by the State+ 4or this

reason" private respondents cannot invoke their ri2ht a2ainst double 1eopardy+

5oth the trial court and the Court of Appeals 0ere thus not in error 0hen they allo0ed

reinstatement of the cases a2ainst petitioner+

&HEREFORE, the resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA)*+,+ No+ S-)./!" dated

November !" !##$ and 'anuary (" !##(" 0hich upheld the orders of the ,e2ional Trial Court of

6akati" 5ranch !/#" in Criminal Cases Nos+ #!)$($!)$" are hereby A44I,6ED+ Costs a2ainst

petitioner+

SO OR!ERE!.

Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and e Leon, !r., !!., concur+

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 10712'. a()ar* 2+, 2001]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/127772.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/127772.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/127772.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/127772.htm#_edn17


22/65

GEORGE MANANTAN , petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS,

SPOUSES MARCELINO NICOLAS a( MARIA

NICOLAS, respondents.

! E C I S I O N

$UISUMBING, J .%

This is a petition for revie0 of the decision dated 'anuary /!" !## of the Court of Appeals

in CA)*+,+ CV No+ !#." modifyin2 the 1ud2ment of the ,e2ional Trial Court of Santia2o"

Isabela" 5ranch !" in Criminal Case No+ $$+ -etitioner *eor2e 6anantan 0as ac>uitted by the

trial court of homicide throu2h reckless imprudence 0ithout a rulin2 on his civil liability+ On

appeal from the civil aspect of the 1ud2ment in Criminal Case No+ $$" the appellate court found

petitioner 6anantan civill" lia#le and ordered him to indemnify private respondents 6arcelino

Nicolas and 6aria Nicolas -!.".+ representin2 loss of support" -:"+ as deathindemnity" and moral dama2es of -"+ or a total of -!(.".+ for the death of their son"

,uben Nicolas+

The facts of this case are as follo0s;

On 'une !" !#

careless and imprudent manner" 0ithout due re2ard to traffic la0s" re2ulations and

ordinances and 0ithout takin2 the necessary precaution to prevent accident to person

and dama2e to property" causin2 by such ne2li2ence" carelessness and imprudence

said automobile driven and operated by him to sides0ipe a passen2er 1eep bearin2

plate No+ #!


23/65

The prosecutions evidence" as summari7ed by the trial court and adopted by the appellate

court" sho0ed that;

%I&n the mornin2 of September :" !#


24/65

As a result of the collision the car turned turtle t0ice and landed on its top at the side

of the hi2h0ay immediately at the approach of the street 2oin2 to the 4lores Clinic

0hile the 1eep s0erved across the road so that one half front portion landed on the

lane of the car 0hile the back half portion 0as at its ri2ht lane five meters a0ay from

the point of impact as sho0n by a sketch 8EBhibit A9 prepared by Cudamon thefollo0in2 mornin2 at the -olice 3ead>uarters at the instance of his la0yer+ 4iscal

Ambrocio lost consciousness+ ?hen he re2ained consciousness he 0as still inside the

car 8lyin29 on his belly 0ith the deceased on top of him+ Ambrocio pushed 8a0ay9 the

deceased and then he 0as pulled out of the car by Taban2in+ After0ards" the deceased

0ho 0as still unconscious 0as pulled out from the car+ 5oth 4iscal Ambrocio and the

deceased 0ere brou2ht to the 4lores Clinic+ The deceased died that ni2ht 8EBhibit 59

0hile Ambrocio suffered only minor in1uries to his head and le2s+ %&

The defense version as to the events prior to the incident 0as essentially the same as that of the prosecution" eBcept that defense 0itness 6i2uel Taban2in declared that 6anantan did not

drink beer that ni2ht+ As to the accident" the defense claimed that;

The accused 0as drivin2 slo0ly at the ri2ht lane %at& about inches from the center

of the road at about / kilometers per hour at the National 3i2h0ay at 6alvar"

Santia2o" Isabela" 0hen suddenly a passen2er 1eepney 0ith bri2ht li2hts 0hich 0as

comin2 from the opposite direction and runnin2 very fast suddenly s0erve8d9 to the

cars lane and bumped the car 0hich turned turtle t0ice and rested on its top at the

ri2ht ed2e of the road 0hile the 1eep stopped across the center of the road as sho0n bya picture taken after the incident 8EBhibit !9 and a sketch 8EBhibit /9 dra0n by the

accused durin2 his rebuttal testimony+ The car 0as hit on the drivers side+ As a result

of the collision" the accused and 6i2uel Taban2in and 4iscal Ambrocio 0ere in1ured

0hile ,uben Nicolas died at the 4lores Clinic 0here they 0ere all brou2ht for

treatment+%/&

In its decision dated 'une /" !#


25/65

On Au2ust


26/65

A?A,D O4 DA6A*ES 5 T3E ,E*IONA T,IA CO@,T O4 ISA5EA"

5,ANC3 HHI" ?AS ITSE4 CONSISTENT ?IT3 T3E -ETITIONE,S

ACF@ITTA 4O, T3E ,EASON T3AT T3E CIVI ACTION ?AS I6-IED

INSTIT@TED ?IT3 T3E C,I6INA ACTION AND T3E,E ?AS NO EH-,ESS

?AIVE, O4 T3E CIVI ACTION O, ,ESE,VATION TO INSTIT@TE ITSE-A,ATE 5 T3E -,IVATE ,ES-ONDENTS IN T3E T,IA CO@,T+

T3I,D T3E CO@,T O4 A--EAS DID NOT 3AVE '@,ISDICTION TO TAGE

CO*NIANCE O4 T3E CASE CA)*+,+ CV No+ !#. ENTITED; 'P'*'

M+C*L- -CL+' + M+-+ -CL+' v. /*/* M++T+, AND

,ENDE, T3E DECISION SO@*3T TO 5E ,EVIE?ED ?3EN T3E SA6E

?AS -,OSEC@TED 5 T3E -,IVATE ,ES-ONDENTS IN T3EI, -E,SONA

CA-ACITIES AND T3E 4IIN* 4EES NOT 3AVIN* 5EEN -AID" T3@S

VIOATIN* T3E M+C0*'T* DOCT,INE+

In brief" the issues for our resolution are;

8!9 Did the ac>uittal of petitioner foreclose any further in>uiry by the Court of Appeals as to his

ne2li2ence or reckless imprudenceJ

89 Did the court a &uo err in findin2 that petitioners ac>uittal did not eBtin2uish his civil

liabilityJ

8/9 Did the appellate court commit a reversible error in failin2 to apply the 6anchester doctrineto CA)*+,+ CV No+ !#.J

On the first issue" petitioner opines that the Court of Appeals should not have disturbed the

findin2s of the trial court on the lack of ne2li2ence or reckless imprudence under the 2uise of

determinin2 his civil liability+ 3e ar2ues that the trial courts findin2 that he 0as neither

imprudent nor ne2li2ent 0as the basis for his ac>uittal" and not reasonable doubt+ 3e submits

that in findin2 him liable for indemnity and dama2es" the appellate court not only placed his

ac>uittal in suspicion" but also put him in double 1eopardy+

-rivate respondents contend that 0hile the trial court found that petitioners 2uilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt" it did not state in clear and une>uivocal terms that

petitioner 0as not recklessly imprudent or ne2li2ent+ 3ence" impliedly the trial court ac>uitted

him on reasonable doubt+ Since civil liability is not eBtin2uished in criminal cases" if the

ac>uittal is based on reasonable doubt" the Court of Appeals had to revie0 the findin2s of the

trial court to determine if there 0as a basis for a0ardin2 indemnity and dama2es+


27/65

-reliminarily" petitioners claim that the decision of the appellate court a0ardin2 indemnity

placed him in double 1eopardy is misplaced+ The constitution provides that no person shall be

t0ice put in 1eopardy for the same offense+ If an act is punished by a la0 and an ordinance"

conviction or ac>uittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act+%!&?hen a person is char2ed 0ith an offense and the case is terminated either by ac>uittal or

conviction or in any other manner 0ithout the consent of the accused" the latter cannot a2ain be

char2ed 0ith the same or identical offense+%!!& This is double 1eopardy+ 4or double 1eopardy to

eBist" the follo0in2 elements must be established; 8a9 a first 1eopardy must have attached prior to

the second 89 the first 1eopardy must have terminated and 8/9 the second 1eopardy must be for

the same offense as the first+%!& In the instant case" petitioner had once been placed in 1eopardy by

the filin2 of Criminal Case No+ $$ and the 1eopardy 0as terminated by his dischar2e+ The

1ud2ment of ac>uittal became immediately final+ Note" ho0ever" that 0hat 0as elevated to the

Court of Appeals by private respondents 0as the civil aspect of Criminal Case No+

$$+ -etitioner 0as not char2ed ane0 in CA)*+,+ CV No+ !#. 0ith a second criminal offense

identical to the first offense+ The records clearly sho0 that no second criminal offense 0as bein2imputed to petitioner on appeal+ In modifyin2 the lo0er courts 1ud2ment" the appellate court did

not modify the 1ud2ment of ac>uittal+ Nor did it order the filin2 of a second criminal case a2ainst

petitioner for the same offense+ Obviously" therefore" there 0as no second 1eopardy to speak

of+ -etitioners claim of havin2 been placed in double 1eopardy is incorrect+

Our la0 reco2ni7es t0o kinds of ac>uittal" 0ith different effects on the civil liability of the

accused+ 4irst is an ac>uittal on the 2round that the accused is not the author of the act or

omission complained of+ This instance closes the door to civil liability" for a person 0ho has been

found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for

such act or omission+%!/& There bein2 no delict " civil liability ex delicto is out of the >uestion" andthe civil action" if any" 0hich may be instituted must be based on 2rounds other than

the delict complained of+ This is the situation contemplated in ,ule !!! of the ,ules of Court+%!.& The second instance is an ac>uittal based on reasonable doubt on the 2uilt of the accused+ In

this case" even if the 2uilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established" he is not eBempt

from civil liability 0hich may be proved by preponderance of evidence only+ %!:& This is the

situation contemplated in Article # of the Civil Code"%!$& 0here the civil action for dama2es is for

the same act or omission+ Althou2h the t0o actions have different purposes" the matters

discussed in the civil case are similar to those discussed in the criminal case+ 3o0ever" the

1ud2ment in the criminal proceedin2 cannot be read in evidence in the civil action to establish

any fact there determined" even thou2h both actions involve the same act or omission+ %!(& The

reason for this rule is that the parties are not the same and secondarily" different rules of evidence

are applicable+ 3ence" not0ithstandin2 herein petitioners ac>uittal" the Court of Appeals in

determinin2 0hether Article # applied" 0as not precluded from lookin2 into the >uestion of

petitioners ne2li2ence or reckless imprudence+

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/107125.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/107125.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/107125.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/107125.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/107125.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/107125.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/107125.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/107125.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/107125.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/107125.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/107125.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/107125.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/107125.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/107125.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/107125.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/107125.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jan2001/107125.htm#_edn17


28/65

On the second issue" petitioner insists that he 0as ac>uitted on a findin2 that he 0as neither

criminally ne2li2ent nor recklessly imprudent+ Inasmuch as his civil liability is predicated on the

criminal offense" he ar2ues that 0hen the latter is not proved" civil liability cannot be

demanded+ 3e concludes that his ac>uittal bars any civil action+

-rivate respondents counter that a closer look at the trial courts 1ud2ment sho0s that the

1ud2ment of ac>uittal did not clearly and cate2orically declare the non)eBistence of petitioners

ne2li2ence or imprudence+ 3ence" they ar2ue that his ac>uittal must be deemed based on

reasonable doubt" allo0in2 Article # of the Civil Code to come into play+

Our scrutiny of the lo0er courts decision in Criminal Case No+ $$ supports the conclusion

of the appellate court that the ac>uittal 0as based on reasonable doubt hence" petitioners civil

liability 0as not eBtin2uished by his dischar2e+ ?e note the trial courts declaration that did not

discount the possibility that the accused 0as really ne2li2ent+ 3o0ever" it found that a hypothesis

inconsistent 0ith the ne2li2ence of the accused presented itself before the Court and since said

hypothesis is consistent 0ith the recordthe Courts mind cannot rest on a verdict of conviction+%!uittal 0as predicated on the conclusion that his

2uilt had not been established 0ith moral certainty+ Stated differently" it is an ac>uittal based on

reasonable doubt and a suit to enforce civil liability for the same act or omission lies+

On the third issue" petitioner ar2ues that the Court of Appeals erred in a0ardin2 dama2es

and indemnity" since private respondents did not pay the correspondin2 filin2 fees for their

claims for dama2es 0hen the civil case 0as impliedly instituted 0ith the criminal

action+ -etitioner submits that the non)payment of filin2 fees on the amount of the claim for

dama2es violated the doctrine in Manchester evelopment Corporation v. Court of +ppeals" !.#SC,A :$ 8!#


29/65

At the time of the filin2 of the information in !#uired that the

dama2es sou2ht by the offended party be stated in the complaint or information+ ?ith the

adoption of the !#


30/65

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and e Leon, !r., !!., concur+

EN 5ANC

[G.R. No. 1-2'/. Ocor 10, 2001]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLOS

FELICIANO, accused-appellant.

! E C I S I O N

3ITUG, J .%

4rom bein2 the sub1ect of moral condemnation" the Giss of 'udas appears to attain a

different dimension in criminal procedure+ Indeed" by enterin2 into an KunholyK contract 0ith an

accused" so that the latter mi2ht betray his partner in crime in eBchan2e for an ac>uittal" the State

demonstrates ho0 far its efforts could 2o to vindicate crime+ That the State should a2ree to

become a party to settin2 up a premium on Ktreachery"K and that it should re0ard conduct from

0hich an honorable man 0ould ordinarily recoil 0ith aversion" paradoBically illustrates the

perceived necessity of such kind of an arran2ement in criminal procedure+ %!& It is this do22edness

of purpose on the part of the State 0hich herein accused)appellant" in one of his assi2nment of

errors" decries )

The trial court %has& erred in dischar2in2 accused ,odel de la Cru7 to be the state

0itness a2ainst co)accused Carlos 4eliciano despite stron2 ob1ections from thedefense+%&

The accused)appellant" Carlos 4eliciano" 0as a security 2uard detailed by the Atlantic

Security A2ency at the Gin2smen buildin2" also popularly kno0n in the small community as the

hub of four disco pubs located on four floors of the edifice" in Galibo" Aklan+ 3e 0as assi2ned to

the KSuperstarK disco pub and his duties ran2ed from refusin2 entry to dubious characters to

makin2 certain that no customer 0ould leave 0ithout first payin2 his bill+ ,odel de la Cru7" a

security 2uard from another a2ency" the ,hea7a Security A2ency" 0as stationed at the parkin2 lot

of the same buildin2+ In keepin2 0ith the nocturnal business hours of the establishments at

Gin2smen" the t0o security 2uards 0ould report for duty at (; in the evenin2 until the 0ee

hours of the neBt mornin2 or 0hen the last customer 0ould have by then left the premises+ In the

early mornin2 of : 'une !##:" 4eliciano and de la Cru7 centrally fi2ured in the investi2ation

over the 2risly death of an unidentified 0oman 0hose body 0as found spra0led in 5aran2ay

Ne0 5us0an2" Galibo" Aklan+

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/136258.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/136258.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/136258.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/136258.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/136258.htm#_edn2


31/65

4indin2 a dead body at :;/ in the mornin2 in nearby 5aran2ay 5us0an2 0as bi2 ne0s to

the small community of Galibo+ The radio ne0s about an unidentified lifeless female lyin2 in the

Sampaton 4uneral -arlor cau2ht the curiosity of ,osalie ,icarto+ The dead 0oman" so described

as 0earin2 a red 1acket embla7oned 0ith the 0ords KEl)3assan" Gin2dom of Saudi ArabiaK and

maon2 pants" fit the description of Teresita 4uentes+ ,osalie" a rice retailer" shared a stall 0ith

Teresita" a vendor of spices" condiments and fruits" at the ambin2 5uildin2+ ,osalie last sa0

Teresita on the afternoon of . 'une !##:+ Teresita" 0ho re2ularly 0ent to Iloilo t0ice a 0eek to

buy 2oods to sell" 0as scheduled to leave the follo0in2 mornin2 of : 'une !##:+ Accordin2 to

,osalie" Teresita" 0ho normally 0ould take the ; a+m+ trip to Iloilo" should already be back at

Galibo by about .; p+m+ of the same day+ 5ut Teresita did not return that afternoon+ ,osalie

said that Teresita 0ore pieces of 1e0elry ) a necklace" a pair of earrin2s" a bracelet" four rin2s and

a Seiko 0rist0atch ) all of 0hich" eBcept for the timepiece" 0ere eventually recovered+ Anna

i7a -ronton 4uentes" the dau2hter of Teresita" 0as able to identify the ba2 recovered by 6yca

5anson from the crime scene" as 0ell as all its contents" to be those belon2in2 to her

mother+ike0ise" recovered at the crime scene 0ere t0elve -!+ bills" seven -:+ bills andthe broken 0indshield of the tricycle o0ned by ,uben 5arte+ Turned over to the police by the

mana2er of the Superstar Disco Club 0as the sum of -!"++

The autopsy report sho0ed that 0hoever blud2eoned the hapless Teresita 4uentes to death

had used a blunt instrument" inflictin2 t0elve different 0ounds on her head and face+ The cause

of death 0as noted to be severe hemorrha2e secondary to lacerated 0ounds and skull fracture+

On Au2ust !##:" an Information 0as filed a2ainst ,odel de la Cru7 and Carlos 4eliciano

)

KThat on or about the :th day of 'une !##:" in the early mornin2" in 5aran2ay Ne0

5us0an2" 6unicipality of Galibo" -rovince of Aklan" ,epublic of the -hilippines" and

0ithin the 1urisdiction of this 3onorable Court" the above)named accused" conspirin2

and confederatin2 to2ether and mutually helpin2 one another" 0hile armed 0ith a

hand2un" by means of force and violence" and 0ith intent of 2ain and 0ithout the

consent of the o0ner thereof" did then and there 0illfully" unla0fully and feloniously

take" steal" rob and carry a0ay cash money in the amount of TEN T3O@SAND

-ESOS 8-!"+9" -hilippine currency" more or less" belon2in2 to TE,ESITA

4@ENTES OSO,IO" to the dama2e and pre1udice of the o0ner in the aforesaidamount that by reason or in the occasion of said robbery" and for the purpose of

enablin2 the accused to take" steal and carry a0ay the aforesaid amount" the above)

named accused 0ith intent to kill and conspirin2 0ith one another" did then and there

0illfully" unla0fully and feloniously and 0ith evident premeditation and under the


32/65

cover of darkness" treacherously attack" assault and 0ound TE,ESITA 4@ENTES

OSO,IO" thereby inflictin2 upon her mortal 0ounds" to 0it;

!+ acerated 0ound about ! inches in len2th left chin+

+ acerated 0ound about ! inch in len2th left lo0er lip+

/+ 4racture of the left mandible+

.+ 4racture of the left upper lateral incisor and the left upper canine+

:+ acerated 0ound about ! inches in len2th and about ! in depth left face+

$+ -unctured 0ound in diameter and about ! inches in depth mid)portion base nose brid2e left+

(+ acerated 0ound about inches in len2th and about ! inches in depth left cheek+


33/65

A detailed account of the incident presented at the trial by the prosecution 0as narrated by

the Office of the Solicitor *eneral+

KIn the early mornin2 of 'une :" !##:" before oLclock" appellant 0ent to the 2uard

post of Dela Cru7 to tell the latter to assist him in 2oin2 after a customer 0ho did not

pay the bill+ It 0as not the first time that they had to run after a non)payin2

customer+ Dela Cru7 thus accompanied appellant 0ho rented for the purpose a tricycle

from its driver" ,uben 5arte" 0ho stayed behind+Appellant initially drove but about

t0enty meters past Gin2smen 5uildin2" he asked Dela Cru7 to take over 0hile he

stayed inside the passen2er sidecar of the tricycle+ Some0here bet0een the Ceres and

ibacao terminals" appellant ali2hted from the tricycle after instructin2 Dela Cru7 to

stop and 0ait for him+ Appellant subse>uently informed Dela Cru7 that they shall 0ait

there for the customer they 0ere after+ About a half hour later" ho0ever" appellant

decided to leave the place" apparently because the person he 0as lookin2 for 0asno0here in si2ht+ As they passed 5an2a" Ne0 ?ashin2ton crossin2" they sa0 a

0oman 0alkin2 alone+ Appellant 0aved at her" 2ivin2 Dela Cru7 the impression that

they kne0 each other+ Dela Cru7 stopped the vehicle" as he 0as told by appellant" 0ho

then 1umped out+ Dra0in2 his service 2un" appellant suddenly held the 0oman by the

neck and at the same time poked his 2un at her face+ 3e dra22ed her to0ards the

tricycle and ordered her to board it+ The 0oman 0ould later be identified as Teresita

4uentes+ Dela Cru7 0as shocked 0ith 0hat appellant did and 0as at a loss on 0hat to

do+ Still stricken 0ith panic" Dela Cru7 asked appellant 0hat 0as 2oin2 on and said he

0as leavin2 as he did not 0ant to be part of 0hatever plans appellant had+ Appellant

retorted that Dela Cru7 0as already involved+ Dela Cru7 0as about to ali2ht from the

tricycle 0hen appellant poked his 2un at him and ordered him to drive+ Thinkin2 that

appellant 0as in a position to easily shoot him" Dela Cru7 did as he 0as ordered+

KAppellant then instructed Dela Cru7 to drive back to the public market+ ?hen they

reached the 1unction of Totin2 ,eyes and ,oBas Avenues" appellant told Dela Cru7 to

turn ri2ht at ,i7al 6emorial Colle2e of Arts and Trade 8,6CAT9+ They noticed at this

point that another tricycle" 0hich came from the direction of Gin2smen 5uildin2" 0as

follo0in2 them+ This prompted appellant to order Dela Cru7 to turn left at 6a2dalena

Villa2e instead and to drive faster+ Durin2 the ride" appellant held 4uentes" 0ho 0as

crouchin2" by her hair" pressin2 her head do0n+ 3e also kicked her and struck her

head 0ith the butt of his 2un 0henever she stru22led+ Dela Cru7 asked appellant to

stop hurtin2 4uentes and to have pity but his entreaties fell on deaf ears+ Appellant

even threatened to shoot Dela Cru7 if he does not stop complainin2+


34/65

K?hen they reached Ne0 5us0an2" they noticed that the other tricycle they sa0

earlier 0as still trailin2 them by about !: meters+ As they approached 6a2dalena

Villa2e after passin2 Camp 6artelino" 4uentes stru22led so appellant hit her

a2ain+ Dela Cru7 told appellant to desist from strikin2 her+ Appellant did not take

kindly to the unsolicited advice and fired his 2un in the air+Seein2 an opportunity forescape" Dela Cru7 suddenly s0erved the tricycle to0ards 6a2dalena Villa2e until the

vehicle toppled over+ ?hen the tricycle 0as lifted from its fallen state" Dela Cru7

immediately 1umped out of it and ran to0ards a feeder road leadin2 to the Cooperative

,ural 5ank+ 3e 0as restin2 at the back of the bank for a fe0 minutes 0hen appellant

also arrived+ Enra2ed" Dela Cru7 this time dre0 his service firearm and aimed it at

appellant" demandin2 from the latter an eBplanation 0hy he had to involve him 8Dela

Cru79+ ?ith an assurance that he 0ould o0n up the responsibility for everythin2 that

had happened" appellant 0as able to calm Dela Cru7 do0n+ After returnin2 his service

2un to the holster" Dela Cru7 headed back to the road+ 5ehind him follo0in2 0as

appellant+ Then" they sa0 5arte" from 0hom appellant rented the tricycle earlier"

tryin2 to start the en2ine thereof+ It turned out that it 0as 5arte 0ho 0as in the other

tricycle" driven by ,amon ael+ Appellant assured 5arte that he 0ill pay for all the

dama2es of the rented tricycle+

K6ean0hile" Dela Cru7 0ent back to Gin2smen 5uildin2 aboard aelLs tricycle to

look for his dancer 2irlfriend" 6yka 8or 6ika9 5an7on 8or Vanson9" but she 0as not

there+ Dela Cru7" 0ith ael in his tricycle" 0ere about to 2o to 5an7onLs boardin2

house 0hen appellant approached them" insistin2 that ael take him first to

6a2dalena Villa2e+ Afraid of appellant" ael a2reed+ ?hen they 2ot there" particularly

0here 5arteLs tricycle turned over earlier" appellant 0alked to0ards a man2o

tree+ Curious" Dela Cru7 follo0ed him+ Dela Cru7 sa0 appellant hittin2 4uentes on the

head 0ith his 2un+ She 0as lyin2 do0n face up" 2roanin2+ Dela Cru7 admonished and

pushed appellant a0ay" tellin2 him to have pity on 4uentes+ Since he did not 0ant to

2et involved further nor did he 0ant to see any more of 0hat appellant 0as up to" Dela

Cru7 0alked back to the tricycle+ 3e took a last look back and sa0 appellant 2ettin2

somethin2 from the pocket of 4uentes and puttin2 it inside the pocket ofhis chaleco+ Soon enou2h" appellant cau2ht up 0ith Dela Cru7 and ael as they 0ere

about to leave and they all 0ent back to Gin2smen 5uildin2+

KDela Cru7 finally found 5an7on at the third floor of the buildin2 and informed her

that he 0as 2oin2 to brin2 her home already+ She passed by the ladiesL room 0hile he


35/65

stood 0atch outside+Appellant arrived and told Dela Cru7 and 5an7on that they had to

talk inside the ladiesL room+ 3e 0as 2ivin2 Dela Cru7 and 5an7on -$+ each" but

they declined to accept the money+Appellant threatened Dela Cru7 not to s>ueal

0hatever he kno0s or appellant 0ill kill him and his family+ ?hen appellant insisted

in 2ivin2 the money" Dela Cru7 took it only to place it on the sink" then" he and5an7on left+

KDela Cru7 and 5an7on 0ere leavin2 for her boardin2 house aboard aelLs tricycle

0hen appellant cau2ht up 0ith them a2ain and ordered ael to first take him to Ceres

terminal+ As they passed the Tumbokan 6emorial 3ospital" they came across 5arte

drivin2 his tricycle+ After si2nalin2 for 5arte to stop" appellant 2ave him money+ Dela

Cru7 and 5an7on >uickly transferred to 5arteLs tricycle since ael still had to take

appellant to the terminal+ In the course of the transfer to the other tricycle" appellant

placed somethin2 inside the pocket of Dela Cru7 0ho thou2ht nothin2 of it as he 0asin a hurry to 2o home+ In 5an7onLs boardin2 house" Dela Cru7 found out that 0hat

appellant had put in his pocket 0as a blood)stained necklace 0rapped in a piece of

paper+ 5an7on also sho0ed him a ba2 she found at the place 0here 5arteLs tricycle

turned turtle+ Dela Cru7 planned to return the necklace and the ba2 the neBt day+

KIn the evenin2 of 'une :" !##:" Dela Cru7 reported for 0ork+ Appellant asked him for

the necklace so that he could pa0n it+ Dela Cru7" ho0ever" 0as unable to 2ive the

necklace back because in the mornin2 of 'une $" !##:" the police raided the boardin2

house of 5an7on+ Amon2 those confiscated by the police 0as his 0allet 0here he

placed the necklace+ The police invited Dela Cru7 to the police station to shed li2ht on

0hat he kne0 about a murder committed in 6a2dalena Villa2e+ The police had earlier

confirmed an anonymous call that a dead 0oman 0as found at Ne0 5us0an2+ T0elve

!)peso bills 0ere found at the scene" as 0ell as a broken 0indshield that 0as traced

to the tricycle rented by 5arte to appellant+ The dead person 0as identified as 4uentes

by her dau2hter" Anali7a 4uentes -ronton+ Thus" Dela Cru7 revealed everythin2 that

appellant had done+ The police asked Dela Cru7 to 2o 0ith them to alab" 5ataan

0here appellant 0as arrested+Appellant 0as then brou2ht to the Galibo -olice Stationfor investi2ation+K%:&

Carlos 4eliciano" in his testimony" denied the asseverations of state 0itness de la Cru7+ 3e

claimed that the accusations 0ere motivated out of pure spite and reven2e borne of the hostility

bet0een them due to 0ork)related differences+ An altercation arose bet0een him and de la Cru7

t0o months before the incident" on $ April !##:" 0hen a customer had complained to the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/136258.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/136258.htm#_edn5


36/65


37/65

three a22ravatin2 circumstances" the court hereby imposes upon the said accused the

supreme penalty of DEAT3 and to indemnify the heirs of Teresita 4uentes the sum of

-:"++

KThe caliber +/< revolver S>uires 5in2ham 0ith SN M !./ 8EBhibit '9 used by4eliciano is hereby forfeited and confiscated in favor of the 2overnment to be

disposed in accordance 0ith la0+

KCosts a2ainst the accused+K%$&

In an automatic revie0 before this tribunal" appellant Carlos 4eliciano raised the follo0in2

assi2nment of errors )

4I.

KT3E T,IA CO@,T E,,ED IN DISC3A,*IN* T3E ACC@SED ,ODE

DE A C,@ TO 5E T3E STATE ?ITNESS A*AINST CO)ACC@SED

CA,OS 4EICIANO DES-ITE ST,ON* O5'ECTIONS 4,O6 T3E

DE4ENSE+

4II.

KT3E T,IA CO@,T E,,ED IN ,EIN* 3EAVI ON T3E ?E)

,E3EA,SED TESTI6ON O4 -,OSEC@TION ?ITNESSES+

4III.

KT3E T,IA CO@,T E,,ED IN CONVICTIN* ACC@SED)A--EANT

CA,OS 4EICIANO 4O, T3E C,I6E C3A,*ED IN T3E IN4O,6ATION

DES-ITE T3E INS@44ICIENC O4 EVIDENCE A*AINST 3I6+K%(&

The Court is inclined to a2ree 0ith appellant that state 0itness ,odel de la Cru7 appears to

be far from bein2 the inculpable youn2 man 0ho has simply been an un0ittin2 and reluctant

accomplice to a 2ruesome crime+ Several incidents militate a2ainst his innocence+ The events"related by him" make tenuous the purported threat and intimidation eBerted by appellant over

him+

The behavior of ,odel de la Cru7 durin2 and immediately after the crime could not be that

of a threatened" fri2htened man+ If he indeed 0anted to escape" he had in his possession his o0n

service 2un" and he 0as in control of the tricycle+ 3e had enou2h advanta2e and chances to

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/136258.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/136258.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/136258.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/136258.htm#_edn7


38/65


39/65

upon the su22estion and the information furnished by the prosecutin2 officer in comin2 to the

conclusion as to the Knecessity for the testimonyK of the accused 0hose dischar2e is re>uested" as

to the Kavailability of other direct or corroborative evidence"K and as to 0ho amon2 the accused

is the Kmost 2uilty"K and so the like+%!.& Then" there 0ould be little need for the formality of a trial+%!:&Thus" here" even 0hile one mi2ht be convinced that state 0itness ,odel de la Cru7 0ould" on

the basis of evidence ultimately submitted" appear to be e>ually as" and not less than" 2uilty in

conspiracy 0ith appellant Carlos 4eliciano" the hands of the State are no0 stayed and the Court

must assure the eBemption of the 0itness from punishment+

It is 0idely accepted that the dischar2e of an accused to become a state 0itness has the same

effect as an ac>uittal+ The impropriety of the dischar2e 0ould not have any effect on the

competency and >uality of the testimony" nor 0ould it have the conse>uence of 0ithdra0in2 his

immunity from prosecution+%!$& A dischar2e" if 2ranted at the sta2e 0here 1eopardy has already

attached" is e>uivalent to an ac>uittal" such that further prosecution 0ould be tantamount to the

state rene2in2 on its part of the a2reement and unconstitutionally placin2 the state 0itness indouble 1eopardy+ The rule" of course" is not al0ays irreversible+ In an instance 0here the

dischar2ed accused fails to fulfill his part of the bar2ain and refuses to testify a2ainst his co)

accused" the benefit of his dischar2e can be 0ithdra0n and he can a2ain be prosecuted for the

same offense+

In ' vs. de /uzman"%!(& one of the earlier cases discussin2 this issue" 'ustice Carson had

occasion to briefly touch on the immunity clauses in the Acts of the @nited States Con2ress and

some States+ In ?isconsin" the immunity clause contained a proviso providin2 that persons

committin2 per1ury 0hen called upon to testify could be punished therefor+%!


40/65

deprive him of the immunity provided by the constitution and the 0itness must testify

to somethin2 0hich" if true" 0ould tend to criminate him+ This immunity is only

2ranted to those 0ho earn it by testifyin2 in 2ood faith+ In our 1ud2ment any other

construction 0ould be an insult to and a libel upon the intelli2ence of the people of

Oklahoma" an outra2e on la0" and a prostitution of 1ustice+K%!#&

Despite an obvious attempt to do0n2rade his o0n participation in the crime" state 0itness de

la Cru7" nevertheless" did not rene2e from his a2reement to 2ive a 2ood account of the crime"

enou2h to indeed substantiate the conviction of his co)accused" no0 appellant Carlos 4eliciano"

by the trial court+ On si2nificant points" the dama2in2 testimony of de la Cru7 a2ainst appellant

0as corroborated by ,uben 5arte and ,amon ael+ On the ni2ht of the incident" 4eliciano hired

his vehicle and drove it himself 0hile De la Cru7 0as seated on its passen2er seat+ ?hen the t0o

did not return at the appointed time" 5arte asked ,amon ael" another tricycle driver 0ho

happened to be at the Gin2smen parkin2 area" to accompany him to look for them+ 6yca 5anson

decided to come 0ith them+ After a 0hile" the trio spotted 5artes tricycle bein2 driven by de la

Cru7" and follo0ed it+ 5arte testified ho0 the first tricycle turned turtle at the 1unction to0ards

6a2dalena Villa2e+ ?hen the tricycle tilted" he sa0 a person in red fallin2 from the vehicle"

0hile another person 0ho 0as in 0hite" lifted the first person+ ?hen the first tricycle

precariously lurched" its occupants hurriedly abandoned the vehicle+ The obfuscatin2 folia2e"

ho0ever" blocked his vie0 so 5arte 0as not able to identify 0ho 0as 0ith appellant and de la

Cru7 nor ascertain 0here the t0o men 0ere later headed+ ?hen the three of them approached the

overturned tricycle they found no one+ Near the vehicle" they sa0 an abandoned ba2 0hich 6yca

5anson hastily retrieved+ ?hile 5arte stru22led to turn his vehicle upri2ht" 6yca left 0ith

,amon ael+ ater" 0hile ridin2 his vehicle on his 0ay back" ,uben 5arte 0as forced to stop

because its en2ine stalled+ ?hile inspectin2 the tricycle en2ine" appellant and de la Cru7

approached him" and the former told him not to 0orry as he 0ould pay for the dama2es+ After a

0hile" at the parkin2 lot of the Gin2smen 5uildin2" appellant told him to take his vehicle to a

dark place 0here he 0iped off the blood from the tricycles seats+ ?hen they met a2ain several

hours later" appellant 2ave him -.:+ for the dama2es sustained by the vehicle+ 6uch later"

ael handed him another -:+ 2iven by appellant as additional payment+ ,uben 5arte kept

>uiet about the incident because appellant 0arned him a2ainst reportin2 the matter to

anyone+ ,amon ael corroborated the testimony of 5arte" addin2 that 0hile they 0ere chasin2

appellant and de la Cru7" one of the t0o fired a 2un in the air" constrainin2 them to decrease their

speed+ 6ilitatin2 a2ainst the unbiased nature of the testimony of these t0o 0itnesses 0as their admission of havin2 0illin2ly accepted the blood money 0hich appellant 2ave them that could

0ell >ualify them as bein2 themselves accessories to the crime+ %&

Appellant Carlos 4eliciano 0as not able to sufficiently dispute his participation

therein+ Neither his blanket denial nor his ali#i" both inherently 0eak defenses" 0as amply

proved+

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/136258.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/136258.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/136258.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/136258.htm#_edn20


41/65

Article #.8!9 of the ,evised -enal Code as amended by ,epublic Act No+ ($:#" provides )

K!+ The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death % shall #e imposed &" 0hen by reason or

on occasion of the robbery" the crime of homicide shall have been committed" or 0hen

the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation orarson+K 8Italics supplied+9

*iven the evidence in this case" heretofore narrated" the Court is not convinced that the

prosecution has succeeded in establishin2 beyond reasonable doubt any of the a22ravatin2

circumstances alle2ed in the information that can 0arrant the imposition of the maBimum of the

penalty prescribed by la0+ Evidence is 0antin2 that appellant has especially sou2ht ni2httime to

perpetrate the crime or that the criminal act has been preceded" re>uired in evident premeditation"

by cool thou2ht and reflection+ Not only is treachery an a22ravatin2 circumstance merely

applicable to crimes a2ainst persons but neither also has the mode of attack on the victim of the

robbery been sho0n to have been consciously adopted+

&HEREFORE" the 1ud2ment of the court a &uo is A44I,6ED eBcept insofar as it

imposed on appellant Carlos 4eliciano the penalty of death 0hich is hereby reduced to reclusion

perpetua+ Costs de oficio.

SO OR!ERE!.

avide, !r., C.!., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Mendoza, 1uisum#in$, Pardo, Buena, 2nares3

'antia$o, e Leon, !r., and 'andoval3/utierrez, !!., concur+

4apunan, and Pan$ani#an, !!., on official leave+

EN 5ANC

[G.R. No. 125171. March 1/, 2002]

LETICIA R. MERCIALES, petitioner , vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF

APPEALS, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, OSELITO

NUA!A, PAT. E!&IN MORAL, A!ONIS NIE3ES, ERNESTO

LOBETE, !OMIL GRAGE!A, a( RAMON POL

FLORES, respondents.

! E C I S I O N


42/65

6NARESSANTIAGO, J .%

-etitioner seeks the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals %!& in CA)*+,+

S- No+ /(/.!" denyin2 her petition to annul the Order of the ,e2ional Trial Court of

e2a7pi City" 5ranch uently" the respondent 1ud2e denied the motion for dischar2e" for

failure of the prosecution to present evidence as provided for by Section #" ,ule !!#

of the !#


43/65

On the said date" the prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration" instead of

presentin2 further evidence+ The respondent 'ud2e postponed the hearin2 and reset the

same for Au2ust #" !##.+

On Au2ust #" !##." a2ain the prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration" invokin2its pendin2 petition for certiorari 0ith the Supreme Court+ The private respondents"

thru counsel" ob1ected to any further resettin2 as this 0ould constitute a violation of

their ri2ht to a speedy trial+ The respondent 1ud2e called for a recess so as to let the

prosecution decide 0hether or not to present an N5I a2ent" 0ho 0as then present" to

prove the due eBecution of the accused NuadaLs eBtra1udicial confession+

3o0ever" after the recess" the public prosecutor declined to present the N5I a2ent" and

instead manifested that he 0as not presentin2 any further evidence+ The defense then

moved that the cases be deemed submitted for decision" and asked leave of court tofile a demurrer to evidence+

On Au2ust #" !##." the Solicitor *eneral filed %in *+,+ No+ !!/(/)(


44/65


45/65

the case at bar" 0e a2ree 0ith petitioner that this issue 0as rendered moot 0hen the

Solicitor *eneral" in representation of the -eople" chan2ed his position and 1oined the

cause of petitioner" thus fulfillin2 the re>uirement that all criminal actions shall be

prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor+%uired evidence prompted the trial court to deny the motion to

dischar2e Nuada+

The prosecution elevated the matter to the Supreme Court on a petition for

certiorari+ 6ean0hile" the accused moved to set the case for hearin2" invokin2 their

constitutional ri2ht to speedy trial+ The trial court 2ranted the motion+ The public

prosecutor moved for a continuance" and the trial court acceded+ At the neBt scheduled

hearin2" ho0ever" the trial court denied a similar motion by the prosecution in vie0 of

the ob1ection of the accused+ The trial court directed the public prosecutor to present

Atty+ Carlos S+ Caabay" the N5I A2ent 0ho took NuadaLs eBtra1udicial confession+ At

the resumption of the hearin2" the public prosecutor declared that he 0as restin2 the

prosecutions case" kno0in2 fully 0ell that the evidence he has presented 0as not

sufficient to convict the accused+ Conse>uently" the ensuin2 demurrer to evidence

filed by the accused 0as 2ranted by the trial court+

It is clear from the fore2oin2 that the public prosecutor 0as 2uilty of serious

nonfeasance+ It is the duty of the public prosecutor to brin2 the criminal proceedin2s

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/124171.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/124171.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/124171.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/mar2002/124171.htm#_edn9


46/65

for the punishment of the 2uilty+%!& Concomitant 0ith this is the duty to pursue the

prosecution of a criminal action and to represent the public interest+ A crime is an

offense a2ainst the State" and hence is prosecuted in the name of the -eople of the

-hilippines+ 4or this reason" Section : of ,ule !! provides that all criminal actions

either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under thedirection and control of the fiscal B B B+ As the representative of the State" the public

prosecutor has the ri2ht and the duty to take all steps to protect the ri2hts of the -eople

in the trial of an accused+ %!!& If the public prosecutor commits a nonfeasance in refusin2

to perform a specific duty imposed on him by la0" he can be compelled by an action

for mandamus+%!&

In the case at bar" the public prosecutor kne0 that he had not presented sufficient

evidence to convict the accused+ et" despite repeated moves by the accused for the

trial court to continue hearin2 the case" he deliberately failed to present an available0itness and thereby allo0ed the court to declare that the prosecution has rested its

case+ In this sense" he 0as remiss in his duty to protect the interest of the offended

parties+ 6ore specifically" the public prosecutor in this case 0as 2uilty of blatant error

and abuse of discretion" thereby causin2 pre1udice to the offended party+Indeed" the

family of the deceased victim" 6aritess 6erciales" could do nothin2 durin2 the

proceedin2s" havin2 entrusted the conduct of the case in the hands of the said

prosecutor+ All they could do 0as helplessly 0atch as the public prosecutor" 0ho 0as

under le2al obli2ation to pursue the action on

Documents

Constitutional Law - Double Jeopardy 108-114