G.R. No. L-32728 June 30, 1977
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. VICTORIA R. VALLARTA, accused, THE HONORABLE JUDGE JULIAN E. LUSTRE, and VICTORIA R. VALLARTA, respondents.

FACTS

This is a petition for certiorari filed by the private prosecutor in the name of the People of the Philippines, seeking to annul an order issued by respondent Judge Julian E. Lustre. The order denied a motion to correct the transcript of stenographic notes from a hearing dated May 15, 1970, in a criminal case against Victoria R. Vallarta. The private prosecutor, representing the offended party, moved for correction on the ground that the transcript failed to reflect the true proceedings, specifically alleging that the stenographer omitted a portion of the complaining witness’s testimony regarding the place of delivery of the jewelry subject of the case.
The respondent Judge found the motion without merit. His order noted that the claim of omission was disputed by the defense, uncorroborated by the judge’s own notes, and contradicted by the stenographer’s certification that her transcript was faithful to her notes. The Judge emphasized that the motion was filed over a month after the hearing, making reliance on memory for verbatim recall unreliable. The private prosecutor sought certiorari, fearing that without the correction, a pending motion to dismiss filed by the accused might be granted, to the prejudice of the prosecution.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion to correct the transcript of stenographic notes.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court reiterated the well-settled doctrine that a writ of certiorari will only lie when there is a clear showing that a tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion defined as a capricious, arbitrary, and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The assailed order was a reasoned exercise of judicial prerogative, based on the lack of substantiation for the claimed omission, the stenographer’s certification, the absence of corroboration from the judge’s notes, and the untimeliness of the motion. The Court found no arbitrariness or whimsicality in the Judge’s evaluation of the evidence and his application of the principle that uncertain oral evidence, due to the treachery of memory, is unreliable after a significant lapse of time.
The Court, however, noted the private prosecutor’s concern about a possible failure of justice. To address this, while dismissing the petition, it provided an alternative remedy. It directed that prior to a ruling on the pending motion to dismiss by the successor judge (Judge Lustre having retired), the prosecution could move for the reopening of the proceedings to present evidence on the disputed matter, thereby ensuring the truth could be ascertained without the case resting on a technicality. The Court also admonished that petitions in the name of the People in criminal proceedings should properly be filed by the Solicitor General, not by a private prosecutor alone.