THIRD
DIVISION
|
LIEZL CO, Petitioner, - versus
- HAROLD LIM y GO and AVELINO UY GO,
Respondents. |
|
G.R. Nos. 164669-70 Present: QUISUMBING,* J., CARPIO, Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, PERALTA, and ABAD,** JJ. Promulgated: October 30, 2009 |
x - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Order,[1]
dated 11 February 2004, later upheld in a subsequent Order[2]
dated 29 June 2004, both rendered by Branch 45 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Manila, dismissing Criminal Cases
No. 01-197839 and No. 03-213403 against respondents Harold Lim y Go (Lim) and
Avelino Uy Go (Go), respectively, for violation of Presidential Decree No.
1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law.[3]
On P332,605.00 were seized from the store.[4]
After Inquest proceedings were conducted, the City Prosecutor’s
Office of Manila issued a Resolution dated
That on or about December 6, 2001,
in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with intent to gain for
himself or for another, did then and there willfully and feloniously possess,
keep, conceal, receive, acquire, sell, or dispose or buy and sell thirty (30)
boxes of P250.00 Globe cell card valued at P332,605.00 and five
(5) pcs. Globe cell card valued at P1,105.00, all in the total amount of
P333,710.00 belonging to
Lim moved for a reinvestigation of his case before the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Manila, which was granted by the RTC on
WHEREFORE, it is recommended that Criminal Case No. 01-197839 be remanded back to court for further proceedings. It is likewise recommended that the attached information for Violation of P.D. 1612 against respondent Avelino Uy Go be approved.[12]
Accordingly, the Information[13]
against Go was filed on
That
on or about December 6, 2001, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused, with intent to gain for himself or for another, conspiring and
confederating with Harold Lim who was already charged in Court of the same
offense docketed under Criminal Case No. 01-197839 and mutually helping each
other, did then and there willfully and feloniously possess, keep, conceal,
receive and acquire, sell, or dispose or buy and sell thirty (30) boxes of P250.00
Globe cell card valued at P332,605.00 and five (5) pcs. P250.00 Globe
cell card valued at P1,105.00, all in the total amount of P333,710.00
belonging to LIEZL CO CO, which said cell cards, said accused knew or should
have known to have been the subject/proceeds of the crime of Theft or Robbery.
Respondents
filed a Petition for Review with the Department of Justice assailing the Review
Resolution, dated
On
On
ACCORDINGLY, the resolution appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The City Prosecutor of Manila is directed to withdraw forthwith the informations for violation of PD No. 1612 filed in the court against respondents Harold G. Lim and Avelino Uy Go and to report the action taken hereon within ten days from receipt hereof.[17]
On
On
After
considering the respective stands of the prosecution and the defense as well as
the records of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the Motion
To Dismiss by the accused is meritorious and should be granted. If
this Court will proceed with these criminal cases, the prosecution thereof will
naturally be under the direct control and supervision of Public Prosecutor
Antionio B. Valencia, Jr. However, the
said Public Prosecutor will be placed in an awkward, if not precarious
situation, since he will be going against the very Orders of his own Office and
the Department of Justice which want the Informations withdrawn. If the City Prosecutor’s Office of
The
dispositive part of the said Order reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and finding the Motion To Dismiss by the accused through counsel to be meritorious, the same is hereby GRANTED and let the herein Criminal Cases Nos. 01-197839 and 03-213403 be DISMISSED.
As moved by the private prosecutor, he is given the period allowed by the Rules of Court to file the necessary pleading with respect to this Order of the Court from receipt hereof.
As further moved by the private prosecutor, Atty Lodelberto S. Parungao, that the complainant be allowed to present evidence on the civil aspect of these cases on the ground that the civil actions in these cases were deemed instituted with the criminal actions and that there was no reservation made to file a separate civil action and therefore the civil cases remain pending with this court since extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action, and over the vigorous objection by counsel for the accused Atty. Teresita C. Marbibi who insisted that the dismissal of the herein criminal cases carried with it the dismissal also of the civil aspect thereof, the said motion by the private prosecutor is hereby GRANTED and he may present evidence on the civil aspect of these cases on March 18 and March 25, 2004 both at 8:30 a.m. Considering the manifestation by Atty. Marbibi that she will not participate in said hearings, let the presentation of evidence for the complainant be made ex-parte without objection from the defense counsel.[21]
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[22]
dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the private complainants’ subject Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.[24]
On
I
BY THE PRESENT APPEAL BY CERTIORARI, ARE THE RIGHTS OF THE TWO (2) ACCUSED AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY VIOLATED, CONSIDERING THAT THEY EXPRESSLY MOVED FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST THEM?
II
WAS THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC45-MANILA DISMISSING CRIMINAL CASES NO. 01-197839 AND 03-213403 FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ORDERED THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE CORRESPONDING INFORMATIONS, AND WITHOUT MAKING AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF EVIDENCE, VALID?
The petition is meritorious.
Once a case is filed with the court,
any disposition of it rests on the sound discretion of the court. The trial court is not bound to adopt the
resolution of the Secretary of Justice, since it is mandated to independently
evaluate or assess the merits of the case.
Reliance on the resolution of the Secretary of Justice alone would be an
abdication of its duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case. The trial
court may make an independent assessment of the merits of the case based on the
affidavits and counter-affidavits, documents, or evidence appended to the
Information; the records of the public prosecutor, which the court may order
the latter to produce before the court; or any evidence already adduced before
the court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public
prosecutor.[27]
The failure of the trial court judge
to independently evaluate and assess the merits of the case against the accused
violates the complainant’s right to due process and constitutes grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.
This Court must therefore remand the case to the RTC, so that the latter
can rule on the merits of the case to determine if a prima facie case exists and consequently resolve the Motion to Withdraw Informations anew.[28]
In dismissing the criminal cases
against the respondents, the RTC in this case relied on the unwillingness of
the Department of Justice to prosecute these cases and the awkward situation in
which the public prosecutor would find himself.
The assailed Order dated
After
considering the respective stands of the prosecution and the defense as well as
the records of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the Motion
To Dismiss by the accused is meritorious and should be granted. If
this Court will proceed with these criminal cases, the prosecution thereof will
naturally be under the direct control and supervision of Public Prosecutor Antonio
B. Valencia, Jr. However, the said
Public Prosecutor will be placed in an awkward, if not precarious situation,
since he will be going against the very Orders of his own Office and the
Department of Justice which want the Informations withdrawn. If the City Prosecutor’s Office of
Moreover, the trial judge did not positively
state that the evidence presented against the respondents was insufficient for
a prima facie case, nor did the
aforequoted Order include a discussion of the merits of the case based on an
evaluation or assessment of the evidence on record. In other words, the dismissal of the case was
based upon considerations other than the judge’s own personal individual
conviction that there was no case against the respondents. Thus, the trial judge improperly relinquished
the discretion that he was bound to exercise, and the Orders dated
Section 21, Article III of the
Constitution prescribes the rule against double jeopardy:
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
The following requisites must be
complied with for double jeopardy to set in: (1) there is a valid complaint of
information; (2) the complaint should be filed before a court of competent
jurisdiction; (3) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and (4) the accused
has been convicted or acquitted, or the case has been dismissed or terminated
without the express consent of the accused.[31]
The Order dated
It
is the conviction or the acquittal of the accused, or dismissal or termination
of the case without the approval of the accused that bars further prosecution
for the same offense or any attempt to commit the same or the frustration
thereof.[32] At the heart of the policy is the concern
that permitting the sovereign freely to subject the citizen to a second
judgment for the same offense would arm the government with a potent instrument
of oppression. The constitutional
provision, therefore, guarantees that the State shall not be permitted to make
repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby
subjecting him to embarrassment, expense, and ordeal and compelling him to live
in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the
possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty. Nevertheless, the prosecution is entitled to
one opportunity to require the accused to stand trial. Should the prosecution waive this right to a
full-blown trial, the defendant has the right to have his or her trial
completed by a particular tribunal.[33] If the trial is terminated before it is
completed, and it is dismissed with the consent of the defendant, then double
jeopardy will not attach.
Respondents alleged that petitioner
is guilty of forum shopping since she filed the present petition assailing the
Orders dated
Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules
of Court, which disallows the deplorable practice of forum shopping, provides
that:
SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping.—The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filled therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
Forum shopping exists when a party
repetitively avails himself of several judicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same
transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances and all raising
substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely
by some other court.[34] The test for determining forum shopping is
whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is an identity of parties,
rights or causes of action, and relief sought.[35]
Petitioner in this case is not guilty
of forum shopping since there is no identity of relief and cause of action in
the present petition and in CA-G.R. SP No. 84703. The Petition for Certiorari filed by
petitioners before the Court of Appeals questions the propriety of the
Resolution of the Acting Secretary of Justice.
The present petition docketed as G.R. Nos. 164669-70 seeks the reversal
of the Orders dated
Section
3. Powers and Functions. To
accomplish its mandate, the Department shall have the following powers and
functions:
x
x x x
(2)
Investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders and administer the
probation and correction system.
On the other hand, the determination made by the RTC, which is being
questioned in the present case, is pursuant to the judicial powers conferred by
Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution:
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
Consequently, a determination by the
Court of Appeals that the prosecution of the criminal case must proceed will
not affect whether or not this Court may or may not adjudge that the RTC should
continue to hear the same criminal case.
Finally, this Court finds the
proceedings conducted on 11 February 2004 highly unusual in that the RTC judge had
arraigned the respondents before granting the respondent’s oral motion to
dismiss solely based on the Resolution of the Acting Secretary of Justice dated
16 January 2004, a copy of which was attached to the Motion to Withdraw Informations filed by the public prosecutor on
27 January 2004. The irregularity is
even more pronounced when we consider the fact that the public prosecutor,
whose office had filed a Motion to
Withdraw Informations on 27 January 2004, agreed to have respondents
arraigned on 11 February 2004. Added to
the fact that the defense was allowed to move for the dismissal of the case
even without a written motion, such irregularity arouses suspicions that the
arraignment of the respondents after the public prosecutor was already ordered
to withdraw the Informations was intended to aid respondents in raising the
defense of double jeopardy should another case based on the same incidents be
filed against them. While this Court
does not make any conclusive findings of bad faith on the part of the RTC judge
and the public prosecutor, it deems it proper to issue a reminder to officers
of the court to avoid all appearances of suspicious or questionable behavior so
as not to unduly strain public trust.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The Orders dated 11
February 2004 and 29 June 2004 of Branch 45 of the Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila dismissing
Criminal Cases No. 01-197839 and No. 03-213403,
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The records of this case shall be
remanded to the trial court in order that it may resolve the Motion to Withdraw Informations filed by
the public prosecutor based on an independent assessment of the evidence in
this case.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ROBERTO A.
ABAD
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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third
Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division 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. 755, dated
** Per
Special Order No. 753, dated
[1] Penned
by Judge Marcelino Sayo. Rollo, pp. 12-16.
[2]
[3] The
Anti Fencing Law reads:
WHEREAS,
reports from law enforcement agencies reveal that there is rampant robbery and
thievery of government and private properties;
WHEREAS,
such robbery and thievery have become profitable on the part of the lawless
elements because of the existence of ready buyers, commonly known as fence, of
stolen properties;
WHEREAS,
under existing law, a fence can be prosecuted only as an accessory after the
fact and punished lightly;
WHEREAS,
it is imperative to impose heavy penalties on persons who profit by the effects
of the crimes of robbery and theft.
NOW,
THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the
SECTION
1. Title.
– This Decree shall be known as the Anti-Fencing Law.
SEC.
2. Definition
of Terms. – The following terms shall mean as follows:
a. “Fencing” is the act of any person who, with
intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep,
acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other
manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows,
or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime
of robbery or theft.
x
x x x
SEC.
5. Presumption
of Fencing. – Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or
anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
[4] Records,
p. 110.
[5] Rollo, p. 356.
[6] Records, p. 1.
[7]
[8]
[9] Rollo, p. 356.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Records, 87-89.
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26] Rollo, pp. 30-31.
[27]
[28] Summerville General Merchandising & Co.
Inc. v. Eugenio, Jr., G.R. No. 163741, 7 August 2007, 529 SCRA 274,
281-282.
[29] Records,
p. 149.
[30]
[31] Summerville General Merchandising & Co.
Inc. v. Eugenio, Jr., supra note 28 at 283.
[32] Pacoy v. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472,
[33] People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
168188-89,
[34] Feliciano v. Villasin, G.R. No. 174929, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 348,
370; Cruz v, Caraos, G.R. No. 138208,
23 April 2007, 521 SCRA 510, 521; SK
Realty Inc. v. Uy, G.R. No. 144282, 8 June 2004, 431 SCRA 239, 246.
[35] Citibank, N.A. v. Sabeniano, G.R. No.
156132,