G.R. No. 201644, September 24, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. JOSE C. GO and AIDA C. DELA ROSA, Respondents.

FACTS

On September 28, 2000, seven Informations for Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila against respondents Jose C. Go and Aida C. Dela Rosa, among others, for allegedly defrauding Orient Commercial Banking Corporation of ₱159,000,000.00. After arraignment on November 13, 2001, trial ensued but was repeatedly postponed, primarily due to the prosecution’s delays, preventing the completion of the prosecution’s evidence presentation for almost five years. On December 11, 2007, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to prosecute and violation of their right to speedy trial. The RTC initially granted the motion in an Omnibus Order dated January 9, 2008, finding a violation of the right to speedy trial. However, upon the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration, the RTC reinstated the cases in an Order dated December 10, 2008, which it reaffirmed in an Order dated February 12, 2009. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 108319. Notably, the petition was served only on the private complainant, the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), and not on the People of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). The CA, without ordering the impleader of the People, rendered a Decision dated September 28, 2011, annulling the RTC orders and dismissing the criminal cases, ruling that the prosecution’s delays violated respondents’ right to speedy trial and that double jeopardy had attached. The CA denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated April 17, 2012. The OSG, upon receipt of the CA rulings from PDIC, filed the instant petition, arguing that the CA acted without jurisdiction as the People was not impleaded, violating due process.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the criminal cases via certiorari without the People of the Philippines, represented by the OSG, having been impleaded as an indispensable party.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that the People of the Philippines is an indispensable party in criminal proceedings, as all criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. The failure to implead the People in the certiorari petition before the CA rendered the subsequent actions of the CA null and void for lack of jurisdiction. While the absence of an indispensable party is not per se a ground for dismissal, as the party may be added, it is essential that such party be impleaded before judgment is rendered. The CA’s Decision and Resolution were set aside, and the case was remanded to the CA with instructions to reinstate the certiorari petition and order respondents to implead the People as a party, serving a copy on the OSG. The Court refrained from addressing other issues.