GR 150122; (February, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150122. February 6, 2004.
ANTONIO PASCUAL FABRIGAR, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Antonio Pascual Fabrigar was convicted of attempted homicide by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasig City. The prosecution’s evidence established that on June 6, 1996, an altercation ensued between Fabrigar and Lamberto Cedo. Fabrigar, after initially boxing Cedo, was handed a fan knife by a co-accused and proceeded to stab Cedo multiple times, continuing the attack even after Cedo had fallen into a canal. A .38 caliber gun was also later handed to Fabrigar, who attempted to shoot Cedo, but the gun did not fire. The MeTC found the prosecution witnesses credible and ruled that the nature of the injuries and the manner of attack indicated an intent to kill, constituting attempted homicide.
Fabrigar appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MeTC’s decision. He then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the CA dismissed his petition outright for failure to serve a copy of the petition on the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as required by Section 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. Fabrigar’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Fabrigar’s petition for review purely on the technical ground of failure to serve a copy on the Office of the Solicitor General.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error. The Court emphasized that while procedural rules are important, they are not to be applied in a rigid, technical manner when doing so would frustrate substantial justice. The petitioner’s failure to serve the OSG was a procedural lapse, but the record showed no deliberate intent to subvert the judicial process. Upon learning of the dismissal, Fabrigar promptly served a copy on the OSG and filed a motion for reconsideration.
The Supreme Court highlighted that the case involved the petitioner’s liberty, as the affirmed judgment imposed a straight penalty of one year of imprisonment. Citing Ligon v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that litigations should be decided on their merits whenever possible. The higher objective of procedural rules is to protect substantive rights. Dismissing the appeal on a technicality, under these circumstances, deprived Fabrigar of his right to an ample opportunity for a proper and just determination of his case. Therefore, the CA resolutions were set aside and the CA was ordered to reinstate the petition for review.