GR L 2783; (November, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2783; November 29, 1950
EULOGIO R. LERUM and VIOLA FERNANDEN, petitioners-appellants, vs. ROMAN A. CRUZ, ELENA MUÑOZ and NELLO Y. ROA, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
In a bigamy case (Criminal Case No. 962) against Nello Y. Roa, the defense presented former Judge Roman A. Cruz to testify orally that he, as a Judge of First Instance of Manila in 1944, had issued a decree of divorce in favor of Elena Muñoz (Roa’s wife). The private prosecutors (petitioners Lerum and Fernando) objected, arguing that a judicial decree must be proved by the writing itself, not oral testimony. Their objections were overruled, and their subsequent petitions for certiorari and prohibition to the Supreme Court were dismissed. After failing to exclude the testimony, the private prosecutors filed a petition for declaratory relief in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, seeking a judicial declaration on the sufficiency and probative value of Judge Cruz’s oral testimony to prove the divorce decree. The lower court dismissed the petition.
ISSUE
1. Whether the private prosecutors have the legal personality and interest to file the petition for declaratory relief.
2. Whether the subject matter—the probative value of oral testimony to prove a judicial decree—is proper for declaratory relief under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
1. No, the private prosecutors lack the necessary legal personality. Criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal (or city attorney), who alone represents the People of the Philippines. Private prosecutors may intervene only subject to the fiscal’s control. Here, the City Attorney refused to join the petition, indicating the government’s lack of interest. Thus, the petitioners, as private prosecutors, are not proper parties to seek declaratory relief.
2. No, the subject matter is not proper for declaratory relief. Rule 66 allows declaratory relief only for questions arising under a deed, will, contract, or other written instrument, or under a statute or ordinance. The petition concerns the sufficiency of oral evidence to prove a judicial decree—a matter not included within the scope of the rule. The trial court in the bigamy case has ample authority to rule on the admissibility and weight of such evidence. Any error in that ruling can be raised on appeal in the criminal case, not through a separate declaratory relief action.
The order dismissing the petition is affirmed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.