GR 124171; (March, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 124171 March 18, 2002
LETICIA R. MERCIALES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, JOSELITO NUADA, PAT. EDWIN MORAL, ADONIS NIEVES, ERNESTO LOBETE, DOMIL GRAGEDA, and RAMON “POL” FLORES, respondents.
FACTS
Criminal cases for rape with homicide were filed against private respondents for the death of Maritess Ricafort Merciales. The cases were consolidated in the RTC of Legazpi City, Branch 8. After presenting seven witnesses, the public prosecutor moved to discharge accused Joselito Nuada to be a state witness, contending no evidence was needed as he was already in the DOJ Witness Protection Program. The trial judge denied the motion for failure to present evidence as required by the Rules. The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 113273-78). Despite no TRO from the Supreme Court, the trial judge did not set the case for hearing. The accused moved to set the case for hearing invoking their right to speedy trial, which the judge granted. On the scheduled hearing, the prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration instead of presenting evidence. The hearing was reset. On the next setting, the prosecution again filed a motion for reconsideration, invoking the pending petition. The accused objected to further resetting. The judge recessed to allow the prosecution to decide on presenting an available NBI agent to prove Nuada’s extrajudicial confession. After the recess, the public prosecutor declined to present the witness and manifested he was resting the prosecution’s case. The defense then moved to file a demurrer to evidence. The Supreme Court later denied the prosecution’s motion for a TRO. The accused filed their demurrer. On October 21, 1994, the trial court issued an Order acquitting all accused and dismissing the cases for lack of sufficient evidence. Petitioner Leticia Merciales, the victim’s mother, filed a petition before the Court of Appeals to annul the trial court’s Order. The CA dismissed the petition. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in refusing to nullify the trial court’s Order of acquittal, which was allegedly void for having been rendered without due process due to prosecutorial nonfeasance and judicial tolerance thereof, ousting the trial court of jurisdiction.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The Decision of the Court of Appeals was REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Order dismissing the criminal cases was ANNULLED, and the case was REMANDED to the RTC for further proceedings. The public prosecutor was ORDERED to complete the presentation of all available witnesses.
The Court held that the public prosecutor was guilty of serious nonfeasance. He knew the evidence presented was insufficient for conviction yet deliberately failed to present an available vital witness (the NBI agent), and instead rested the prosecution’s case, thereby reneging on his duty to pursue the action. This blatant error and abuse of discretion prejudiced the offended party. The prosecution’s refusal to present evidence to justify the discharge of an accused as a state witness, as expressly required by Rule 119, Section 9 (now Section 17) of the Rules of Court, was a gross violation. The dismissal was invalid for lack of due process, a fundamental prerequisite. A judgment void for lack of due process is equivalent to excess or lack of jurisdiction. The trial judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in rendering the dismissal. Lack of jurisdiction is a ground for annulment of judgment under the Rules. The Solicitor General’s joining of petitioner’s cause fulfilled the requirement that criminal actions be prosecuted under the public prosecutor’s control. Petitioner, as the victim’s mother, had an interest in the prosecution’s maintenance, and the right of offended parties to appeal an order depriving them of due process is recognized, provided it does not place the accused in double jeopardy. Under the circumstances, the dismissal was a nullity, and thus further proceedings would not violate the right against double jeopardy.