G.R. No. 230018 , June 23, 2021.
NORMAN ALFRED F. LAZARO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

A criminal complaint for Giving Assistance to Suicide was filed against petitioner Norman Alfred F. Lazaro and Kevin Jacob Escalona following the death of Gian Dale Galindez. An Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. Escalona filed a Motion to Quash, alleging the facts charged do not constitute an offense. The RTC issued an Order dated October 23, 2013, with a dispositive portion stating: “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Quash is hereby GRANTED on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. Accordingly, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City is hereby directed to file an Amended Information in the instant case within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.” The prosecution filed an Amended Information (which dropped Escalona) 17 days after receipt, beyond the 10-day period. Lazaro filed motions to expunge the Amended Information. The prosecution filed a Motion for Clarification, pointing out the inconsistency in the RTC’s Order. The RTC, in an Order dated August 4, 2014, clarified that its true intention was not to quash the information but to give the prosecution an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment pursuant to Section 4, Rule 117, and it amended the dispositive portion of its October 23, 2013 Order to reflect this. Lazaro’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals denied Lazaro’s Petition for Certiorari, finding the RTC’s October 23, 2013 Order was interlocutory and could be amended to conform to law and justice.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed a serious reversible error in affirming the RTC’s modification/revision of its earlier Order dated October 23, 2013.

RULING

The Petition lacks merit. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC’s Order dated October 23, 2013 did not dismiss the case. While its dispositive portion contained contradictory statements (granting the motion to quash yet directing the filing of an amended information), the body of the Order clearly stated the court was “not yet ready to order the dismissal” and was “more inclined to give the prosecution an opportunity to correct the defect.” Applying the exception to the rule that the dispositive portion prevails over the body of the decision, the body prevails where it is clear a mistake exists in the dispositive portion. The RTC’s reference to Sections 4 and 5, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure indicated its intent to allow amendment, not dismissal. Consequently, the Order was interlocutory, not final. The RTC possessed the inherent power, under Section 5(g), Rule 135 of the Rules of Court, to amend and control its processes and orders to make them conformable to law and justice. Therefore, the RTC correctly clarified its Order, and the CA committed no error in affirming it.