G.R. No. 112995 July 30, 1998
VICENTE PALU-AY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. EDGAR D. GUSTILO, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and DOMINGO PULMONES, respondents.

FACTS

On March 30, 1986, petitioner Vicente Palu-ay and private respondent Domingo Pulmones were drinking with others when a .38 caliber Super gun held by Pulmones went off near Palu-ay’s face, causing serious injuries and permanent facial paralysis. An information for frustrated murder was filed against Pulmones. The prosecution’s evidence indicated that after a confrontation with another individual, Pulmones returned with a gun and deliberately shot Palu-ay. The defense claimed the shooting was accidental, asserting that Pulmones was showing the gun, which he had taken from another person, to Palu-ay on his open palm when Palu-ay turned and his face touched the gun, causing it to fire. The Regional Trial Court found Pulmones guilty of serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence, sentencing him to imprisonment and ordering him to pay damages. Pulmones did not appeal, applied for and was granted probation, making the decision final. Palu-ay filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. The Court of Appeals held that Palu-ay could not file such a petition without the Solicitor General’s approval, that it was an attempt to review a final judgment, and that a review would expose Pulmones to double jeopardy.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner Vicente Palu-ay has the personality to file a petition for annulment of judgment.
2. Whether the judgment should be annulled on the ground that the trial court decided the case outside the issues made out by the pleadings, thereby acting without due process.

RULING

1. No, the petitioner does not have the personality to file the petition for annulment of judgment without the Solicitor General’s approval. The Supreme Court clarified that while a private complainant may file a special civil action questioning a decision on jurisdictional grounds concerning the civil aspect of the case, such action must be prosecuted in the complainant’s own name and not in the name of the People of the Philippines. In this case, Palu-ay’s action challenges the validity of the judgment itself, not merely its civil aspect, and the Solicitor General, representing the State, disagrees with his claim. Therefore, Palu-ay lacks standing to file the petition.
2. No, the judgment should not be annulled. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not decide outside the issues or act without due process. The issues were whether the shooting was deliberate (as per the prosecution) or accidental (as per the defense). The trial court, after hearing both sides, found that Pulmones had no motive to kill Palu-ay and disbelieved the defense’s claim that the gun fired on its own. Instead, it inferred from the evidence that Pulmones was holding the gun with his finger on the trigger and was recklessly imprudent in handling it, leading to the accidental discharge. This inference was within the court’s discretion to assess the evidence and determine probable facts. A judgment is void for lack of due process only if a party is deprived of the opportunity to be heard, such as when a trial is not held or evidence is not allowed. Here, a full hearing was conducted, and any error in appreciating the evidence was an error of judgment, not jurisdiction. Furthermore, annulling the judgment on factual grounds at the prosecution’s instance would violate Pulmones’ right against double jeopardy. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.