G.R. No. 197056 . March 02, 2016.
FE P. ZALDIVAR, ACCOMPANIED BY HER HUSBAND ELIEZER ZALDIVAR, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MAMERTO B. DUMASIS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Fe P. Zaldivar and Jeanette Artajo were charged with Estafa before the RTC of Iloilo City (Branch 33). After pre-trial and arraignment, the prosecution presented witnesses Alma Dumasis and Delia Surmieda, who identified their affidavits as their direct testimonies. Zaldivar’s counsel opted not to cross-examine. The case was re-raffled to Branch 23, presided by Judge Edgardo Catilo, after the original judge granted a motion for inhibition. Judge Catilo issued an Order dated November 18, 2005, denying the admission of the prosecution’s exhibits, nullifying the previous proceedings for want of procedural due process, and setting the case for pre-trial conference anew. Zaldivar filed a Motion to Declare Prosecution’s Case Terminated, which was denied. She then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, which set aside the RTC orders and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial. The CA ruled that the prosecution’s manner of presenting evidence was within its discretion and that Judge Catilo gravely abused his discretion in nullifying the proceedings and ordering a new pre-trial, suggesting instead that witnesses could be recalled under the Rules. Zaldivar’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution’s presentation of witness affidavits in lieu of direct testimonies warranted the dismissal of the criminal case for failure to prove the crime charged.
2. Whether Judge Catilo committed grave abuse of discretion in nullifying the prior proceedings and ordering a new pre-trial conference.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the assailed CA decision and resolution.
1. The CA correctly ruled that the question of whether the prosecution established the crime by competent evidence is evidentiary and best left to the sound judgment of the trial court after a full-blown trial. The presence or absence of the elements of the crime is a matter of defense, and unless Zaldivar files a demurrer to evidence, she cannot enjoin the trial court to terminate the case on that ground.
2. The CA correctly found grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Catilo. Instead of nullifying the proceedings and ordering a new pre-trial, the trial court should have corrected any perceived procedural lapses by recalling the prosecution’s witnesses to identify exhibits, as explicitly allowed under Section 9, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. The trial court’s order was tantamount to an unauthorized new trial or re-opening of the case to the prejudice of the accused. The validity of the pre-trial order and the merits of the case are to be ventilated during the trial proper.