THIRD DIVISION
|
Petitioners, - versus - jaime chua y ibarra, Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 177583 Present: QUISUMBING,
J.,* CARPIO,** CHICO-NAZARIO,
Acting Chairperson, NACHURA,
and PERALTA,
JJ. Promulgated: February 27, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court assails the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 92671, which annulled the 7 December
2004 Order[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 37, directing the filing of
Informations for Murder and Frustrated Murder against Jaime Chua (Jaime) and
Jovito Armas, Jr. (Jovito).
Jaime and Jovito were charged before
the RTC Manila, Branch 27 with the crimes of homicide and frustrated homicide
for the death of Ildefonso Baltazar and the wounding of Edison Baltazar. The cases, which were docketed as Criminal
Cases No. 97-154966 and No. 97-154967, were presided by Judge Edgardo P. Cruz (Judge
Cruz).[3]
On
In a Resolution dated
Jaime and Jovito appealed the
The Secretary of the DOJ (Secretary
of Justice), in his Resolution dated
Meanwhile, on 11 November 1997, in obedience
to the directive of the Secretary of the DOJ, the City Prosecutor filed with
the RTC a Manifestation and Motion for
the Withdrawal of the Informations for Murder and Frustrated Murder and for the
Admission of New Informations for Homicide and Frustrated Homicide.
Over the objections of
Having
been presented prior to arraignment, the motion for withdrawal of the
information for murder and frustrated murder is granted pursuant to Sec. 14,
Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court. Consequently, the amended information
for murder and frustrated murder in Crim. Cases Nos. 97-154966 and 97-154967,
respectively, are considered withdrawn.[4]
Unconvinced of the correctness of the
dismissal of the charges against Jaime and the downgrading of the charges
against Jovito,
In the meantime, the cases were re-raffled
to Branch 37 of the Manila RTC presided over by Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo (Judge
Despite the transfer of the cases to
the sala of Judge
[T]he Court is in no position to favorably act on the
instant motion. If, indeed, there is probable cause for indicting both accused
for the crimes of murder and frustrated murder, the appropriate motion (e.g. amendment of the information) should be
filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 97-161168 and 97-161169 and not in these cases.
To rule otherwise would sanction multiple charges (murder and homicide; and
frustrated murder and frustrated homicide) for a single offense, thereby places
accused in double jeopardy x x x.[6] (Emphasis supplied.)
On
On
[T]his branch cannot act on the motion to dismiss or
consider withdrawn the informations for homicide and frustrated homicide,
otherwise, it would be interfering with the prerogatives of the other branch of
this Court where those criminal actions are pending.[7]
On 30 April 1998, Lourdes and Edison
filed this time before Judge Hidalgo a Motion
for the Amendment of the Informations for Homicide and Frustrated Homicide,
which actually contained arguments identical with those in the Motion to Maintain the Amended Informations
for Murder and Frustrated Murder filed by them on 4 March 1998; i.e., that the RTC should assert its
authority over said cases, independently of the opinion of the Secretary of
Justice, and make its own assessment whether there is sufficient evidence to
hold both Jaime and Jovito liable for the crime of murder and frustrated
murder.
In an Order dated 7 December 2004,
Judge Hidalgo, after making his own assessment of the documents presented by
both the prosecution and the defense, granted the motion and ordered the
reinstatement of the informations for murder and frustrated murder. The decretal portion of the Order reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Informations
for Homicide and Frustrated Homicide are considered withdrawn and the Court hereby
orders the reinstatement of the Informations for murder and frustrated murder x
x x.[8]
On
Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by
the accused is hereby DENIED for lack of basis x x x.
Jaime then filed a petition for
certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals. Again, Jaime contended that
Judge Hidalgo had no authority to order the amendment of the informations and
to include him as co-accused, since such powers and prerogatives revolved
exclusively on the Department of Justice and the City Prosecutor.
In a Decision dated
The Court of Appeals likewise
stressed that the 7 December 2004 Order of Judge Hidalgo was a patent nullity since it revived the earlier
18 November 1997 Order of Judge Cruz withdrawing the charges against Jaime, which
had already attained finality on 6 October 1998.
Aggrieved,
We grant the petition.
The basic issue at hand is whether
Judge
The
rule is that once an information is filed in court, any disposition of the
case, be it dismissal, conviction, or acquittal of the accused, rests on the
sound discretion of the court. Crespo v. Mogul[10]
laid down this basic precept in this wise:
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a
complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as [to]
its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound
discretion of the court. Although the
fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases
even while the case is already in court he cannot impose his opinion on the
trial court. The court is the best and
sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its
exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A
motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court
who has the option to grant or deny the same.
In observance of the tenet spelled
out in Crespo, the Court in Martinez v. Court of Appeals[11]
lamented the trial court’s grant of the motion to dismiss filed by the
prosecution, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice, as the judge
merely relied on the conclusion of the prosecution, thereby failing to perform
his function of making an independent evaluation or assessment of the merits of
the case.
Crespo and
Considering that the trial court has
the power and duty to look into the propriety of the prosecution’s motion to
dismiss, with much more reason is it for the trial court to evaluate and to
make its own appreciation and conclusion, whether the modification of the
charges and the dropping of one of the accused in the information, as
recommended by the Justice Secretary, is substantiated by evidence. This should be the state of affairs, since the
disposition of the case -- such as its continuation or dismissal or exclusion
of an accused -- is reposed in the sound discretion of the trial court.[14]
In the case under consideration, the
City Prosecutor indicted Jaime and Jovito for the crimes of murder and
frustrated murder. However, upon review, the Secretary of Justice downgraded
the charges to homicide and frustrated homicide. The Secretary also dropped Jaime from the
charges. This resolution prompted the City Prosecutor to file a Manifestation and Motion for the Withdrawal
of the Informations for Murder and Frustrated Murder and for the Admission of New
Informations for Homicide and Frustrated Homicide against Jovito only, which
was granted by Judge Cruz in his Order dated 18 November 1997. Judge Cruz, however, failed to make an
independent assessment of the merits of the cases and the evidence on record or
in the possession of the public prosecutor.
In granting the motion of the public prosecutor to withdraw the
Informations, the trial court never made any assessment whether the conclusions
arrived at by the Secretary of Justice was supported by evidence. It did not even take a look at the bases on
which the Justice Secretary downgraded the charges against Jovito and excluded
Jaime therefrom. The said order reads:
For resolution is the prosecution’s motion to withdraw
the amended information for murder and frustrated murder and to admit, in lieu
thereof, the information for homicide and frustrated homicide. (Manifestation
and Motion dated November 6, 1997). The motion was filed in compliance with the
resolution of the Secretary of Justice dated
Having been presented prior to arraignment, the motion
for withdrawal of the information for murder and frustrated murder is granted
pursuant to Sec. 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court. Consequently, the
amended information for murder and frustrated murder in Crim. Cases Nos.
97-154966 and 97-154967, respectively are considered withdrawn.[15]
In so doing, the trial court relinquished
its judicial power in contravention to the pronouncement of the Court in Crespo and in
Judge Cruz did not have a chance to
correct his error since, during the pendency of the motion for reconsideration
questioning his order dated
[T]he Court is in no position to favorably act on the
instant motion. If, indeed, there is probable cause for indicting both accused
for the crimes of murder and frustrated murder, the appropriate motion (e.g. amendment of the information) should be
filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 97-161168 and 97-161169 and not in these cases.
To rule otherwise would sanction multiple charges (murder and homicide; and
frustrated murder and frustrated homicide) for a single offense, thereby
placing accused in double jeopardy x x x.[16] (Emphasis supplied.)
Heeding the advice of Judge Cruz,
In the
affidavit executed by the private complainant Lourdes Baltazar, she positively
identified Jaime Chua, who was just outside the door of the subject apartment,
as the one who handed the gun to Jovito Armas, Jr. simultaneously directing the
latter to fire the same to the deceased by telling “iyan tirahin mo.” This was
confirmed by Edison Baltazar, the son of the deceased, who has a more vivid
recollection of the incident, he being present in the scene when the incident
occurred and more so, a victim too, who was mortally wounded in the crime
complained of. He declared that his
father was shot while both his hands were already raised as a manifestation
that he has (sic) no intention to fight Jaime Chua and Jovito Armas, Jr. Ildefonso turned his back to back off and
leave the aggressors but despite thereof Jovito Armas, Jr. proceeded to carry
out the commands of his boss Jaime Chua, resulting in the death of helpless
Ildefonso Baltazar.
When
his father fell on the ground, he saw Jovito Armas who was about to shoot again
his father. So, he surged to his father
and covered the latter with his own body as a shield causing him to be shot in
the process.
The
summary of evidence demonstrates that there is a prima facie facts showing the
presence of the element of treachery in the case at bar. The circumstance shows that the shooting was
sudden and unexpected to the deceased constituting the element of alevosia
necessary to raise homicide to murder, it appearing that the aggressor adopted
such mode of attack to facilitate the perpetration of the killing without risk
to himself. This is evident since Jovito
Armas, Jr. could have fired the gun to the anterior body of Ildefonso Baltazar
while the latter was still facing him.
But to insure the commission of the killing or to make it impossible or
difficult for Ildefonso to retaliate or defend himself, Jovito did the shooting
when Ildefonso manifested to retreat.
The postmortem findings confirmed that he was shot at the right side of
his abdomen. The position of the victim,
and the part of his body where the bullet passed through show that the sudden (sic)
the act of shooting made by Jovito Armas, Jr. was purposely carried out without
danger to himself of any retaliation from the victim. Hence, element of treachery apparently exist.
From
the statements of the witnesses for the prosecution, a prima facie evidence
sufficient to form a reasonable belief that Jaime Chua is likewise criminally
liable as principal by induction.
In
the incipiency, Jaime Chua appears to be the only adversary of Clarita Tan and
thereafter the Baltazars whom Tan called up for intervention in that
afternoon. There was an admission that
Jaime Chua is the brother-in-law of Jovito Armas, Jr. and the latter likewise
work for the former as bodyguard.
Futhermore, Chua was present when the incident happened being just a few
meters from Jovito Armas and from Ildefonso who was at the door of Chua’s
apartment when the altercation between him and Ildefonso began. Edison who was beside his father narrated
that he saw Chua handed the gun to Jovito Armas simultaneously commanding the
latter: “Tirahin mo iyan” pointing at his father. Clearly, a prima facie evidence shows that
Jovito Armas could not have shot the deceased had not Chua ordered him to do so. Jovito Armas had no existing animosity with
the deceased nor with Clarita Tan.
Rather, it was Chua who apparently infuriated to the Clarita Tan and the
persons who came to her assistance in that afternoon.
The
positive and direct testimony of victim Edison Baltazar and other witnesses for
the prosecution indeed support a finding of probable cause. Settled is the rule that the finding of
probable cause is based neither on clear and convincing evidence of guilt nor
evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable
belief, and so it is enough that there exists such state of facts as would lead
a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain an honest or
strong suspicion that the accused committed the crime imputed.
Upon
the other hand, the version of the defense that it was Ildefonso himself who
shot his own son is, at the stage of the proceeding, incredible considering the
close distance of the Ildefonso from Jovito Armas and Jaime Chua. Had he really willed to fire the gun, which
the defense alleges Ildefonso possessed, to Chua and Armas there is a slim
chance of missing them in four successive shots. Besides, the statements of the witnesses for
the defense failed to provide clear details on how the shooting transpired in
contract with the clear testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution. At most the statements made for the defense
are generally summation of facts, the details of which is yet to be supported
by evidence to be presented and which should properly be ventilated in the
course of the trial on the merits.
Further, the Court is of the opinion that discussing the merits of the
defense at this stage of the proceedings would result on probable prejudgment
of the case.
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, the Informations for Homicide and Frustrated Homicide
are considered withdrawn and the Court hereby orders the reinstatement of the
Informations for murder and frustrated murder in Criminal Case Nos. 97454966
and 9745496, respectively.[17]
In its questioned Decision, the Court
of Appeals held that Judge Hidalgo gravely abused his discretion amounting to
excess of jurisdiction in issuing the foregoing order.
There is excess of jurisdiction
where, being clothed with the power to determine the case, the tribunal, board
or officer oversteps its/his authority as determined by law.[18] And there is grave abuse of discretion
where the capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in which the
court, tribunal, board or officer exercises its/his judgment is said to be
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[19]
Judge
The
Court of Appeals insisted that the instant case did not involve a disposal that
would call for the trial court’s power to grant or deny the same.
This
is inaccurate.
As
to the appellate court’s holding that the 7 December 2004 Order of Judge
Hidalgo revived the final order of Judge Cruz dated 18 November 1997, the same
needs clarification.
It must be noted that the 18 November
1997 Order of Judge Cruz granting the motion of the prosecution to Withdraw the
Information for Murder and Frustrated Murder was in effect an affirmation by
the trial court of the Justice Secretary’s directive to downgrade the crimes against Jovito and to exclude Jaime from these crimes. As discussed earlier, such grant by Judge
Cruz, absent any independent evaluation on his part of the merits of the
resolution of the Justice Secretary, constituted an abdication of his power,
rendering the said Order void. The rule
in this jurisdiction is that orders which are void can never attain finality.[20] Since the
WHEREFORE,
the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice
Acting Chairperson |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairperson’s Attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Per Special Order No. 564, dated
** Per Special Order No. 568, dated
[1] Penned by Associate Mariano C. del Castillo with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Arcangelita Romilla Lontok, concurring; rollo, pp. 54-70.
[2] Penned by Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo; id. at 184-190.
[3] Now an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals.
[4] CA rollo, p. 38.
[5] G.R. No. L-53373,
[6] CA rollo, pp. 42-43.
[7] Rollo, pp. 166-167.
[8] CA rollo, p. 28.
[9]
[10] Supra
note 5 at 471.
[11] G.R.
No. 112387,
[12]
[13] Chan v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No.
147065,
[14] Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
113216,
[15] CA rollo, p. 38.
[16]
[17] Rollo, pp. 188-190.
[18] Litton
Mills, Inc. v. Galleon Trader, Inc., G.R. No. L-40867,
[19]
[20] Villa
v. Lazaro, G.R. No. 69871,