PAMELA REYNALDO

SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 148000. February 27, 2003]
!E PEOPLE OF !E P!"L"PP"NE#, petitioner, vs. !ON. $%DGE PAERNO &. A'(AN )*+ ,*- .a/a.*0y
a- Pre-*1*+2 $u12e o3 0,e R', Four0, $u1*.*a4 Re2*o+, 5ra+., 84, 5a0a+2a- '*0y6 a+1 MAR"O N.
A%#R"A, respondents.
D E ' " # " O N
'ALLE$O, #R., J.7
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision
[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CA!"#" No" $1%&% 'S()
dis*issin+ the petition for certiorari filed ,- petitioner for the nullification of the Order
[.]
dated Au+ust 1/ .00. and
the su,se1uent Order
[&]
den-in+ the *otion for reconsideration issued ,- the #e+ional Trial Court/ 2ranch 34 of
2atan+as Cit- in People vs. Mario Austria/ doc5eted as Cri*inal Case No" 106$$"
On 7e,ruar- ../ .000/ an Infor*ation
[4]
was filed ,- the Office of the Cit- (rosecutor of 2atan+as Cit- a+ainst
8ario N" Austria for falsification of pu,lic official docu*ent" The Infor*ation reads9
That on or a,out :une ./ 1;;; at 2atan+as Cit-/ (hilippines and within the <urisdiction of this =onora,le Court/ the
a,ovena*ed accused/ a pu,lic officer/ he ,ein+ the OfficerinChar+e (rovincial >arden of the 2atan+as (rovincial
:ail located at 2r+-" Cuta 2ili,id/ 2atan+as Cit-/ and ta5in+ advanta+e of his official position/ did then and there
wilfull-/ unlawfull- and feloniousl- falsif- a 8e*orandu* #eceipt for E1uip*ent Se*iE?penda,le and Non
E?penda,le (ropert-/ a pu,lic@official docu*ent of the Office of the (rovincial >arden of 2atan+as/ ,- statin+ in
said *e*orandu* receipt dated :une ./ 1;;; that Colt 8AIV Series B30 !overn*ent 8odel/ (istol Cal" "&30 SN
.$;16 with 40 rounds of a**unitions/ is a provincial +overn*ent propert- dul- re+istered with the 7irear*s and
E?plosives Cnit/ 2atan+as (N( Co**and/ Au*intan+ Ila-a/ 2atan+as Cit-/ and issued to 8r" Al,erto Tesoro/
Civilian A+ent/ for his own use in connection with the perfor*ance of his official duties and functions/ when in truth
and in fact said state*ents are a,solutel- false when he has the le+al o,li+ation to disclose the truth/ as said firear*
is not a propert- of the (rovincial !overn*ent of 2atan+asD that it is not re+istered with the 7irear*s and E?plosives
Cnits of 2atan+as (N( Co**and/ 2atan+as Cit- and Ca*p Cra*e/ EueFon Cit-D and that Al,erto Tesoro is not an
e*plo-ee of the (rovincial !overn*ent of 2atan+as/ to the da*a+e and pre<udice of pu,lic interest"
CONT#A#G TO HA>"
The followin+ were listed in the Infor*ation as witnesses for the (eople of the (hilippines/ and their respective
addresses@places of station@assi+n*ent were also indicated therein9
1" S(O& !audencio C" A+uilera/ 8alvar (olice Station/ 8alvar/ 2atan+asD
." S(O. Si*plicio 8" 2e<asa/ do
&" (!. Sofronio Vicencio/ c@o (rovincial :ail/ 2r+-" Cuta 2ili,id/ 2atan+as Cit-D
4" S(O4 2en<a*in !eron/ 2atan+as (rovincial (olice Office/ Ca*p 8alvar/ Au*intan+ Ila-a/ 2atan+as
Cit-D
%" (CI 7ran5lin 8oises/ 8a,ana+/ do
$" (CI :onathan Viernes A,lan+/ do
6" (CI Edwin !" Ne*enFo/ 7irear*s and E?plosives Cnit/ Ca*p Crane 'sic)/ EueFon Cit- I #E9
Verification dated Septe*,er &0/ 1;;;"
3" (@Inspector Anacleta Cultura/ (N( #e+ional Cri*e Ha,orator- Office IV/ Ca*p Vicente Hi*/
Cala*,a/ Ha+una I #E9 Docu*ent E?a*ination #eport No" DE014;; dated Octo,er .;/ 1;;;D
;" 8i+uel C" 8alvar III/ !eneral Services Office/ 2atan+as Capitol/ 2atan+as Cit-D
10" Au+usto 8" Claveria/ Office of the (rovincial Ad*inistrator/ 2atan+as Capitol/ 2atan+as Cit-
11" (ersonnel Officer/ Office of the (rovincial !overnor/ 2atan+as Capitol/ 2atan+as Cit- I #E9
Appoint*ent of 8ario N" Austria as OIC/ (rovincial >arden fro* :anuar- 1;;; to :une ./ 1;;;D
???"
[%]
The trial court set the arrai+n*ent of the accused and the initial pretrial on Au+ust 1/ .000"
[$]
Apparentl-/ out
of the eleven witnesses listed in the Infor*ation/ onl- the first three witnesses were notified of said arrai+n*ent and
pretrial" >hen the case was called for pretrial/ the trial court discovered that none of the three witnesses who were
alle+edl- earlier notified ,- the court was in attendance" On *otion of the accused and over the o,<ection of the
pu,lic prosecutor/ the trial court issued an order dis*issin+ the case for failure of said witnesses to appear ,efore
it" The ,ail ,ond posted ,- the accused for his provisional li,ert- was there,- cancelled" The pu,lic prosecutor
filed a *otion for reconsideration of said order/ contendin+ that the trial court acted ar,itraril- and capriciousl-
when it dis*issed the case si*pl- ,ecause three of its witnesses who were notified failed to appear at the initial pre
trial" The pu,lic prosecutor asserted that it had eleven witnesses ,ut onl- three were su,poenaed ,- the trial
court" =e ar+ued further that the dis*issal of the case was not authoriFed under #epu,lic Act No" 34;&"
[6]
The trial
court issued an order den-in+ the *otion for reconsideration of the pu,lic prosecutor"
The trial court posits that under #"A" No" 34;& pretrial is *andator- and the presence of the co*plainin+
witnesses is li5ewise re1uired durin+ the trial for the parties to participate in the plea ,ar+ainin+ and stipulation of
facts durin+ said proceedin+s" If the co*plainin+ witnesses are a,sent/ the principal purpose of the pretrial cannot
,e achieved" It was incu*,ent on the pu,lic prosecutor to procure the attendance of its witnesses for the pretrial
,ut this/ he failed to do" The trial court stated that there were instances in the past when the pu,lic prosecutor
*anifested to the trial court that it had no witness for the pretrial and *oved for the dis*issal of cri*inal
cases" The trial court contended that if the dis*issal of the case was precipitate/ it was the fault of the pu,lic
prosecutor and not the trial court9
The prosecution filed a 8otion for #econsideration to the Order dated Au+ust 1/ .000 which dis*issed this case
durin+ the arrai+n*ent and pretrial due to the nonappearance of the co*plainin+ witnesses/ na*el- S(O&
!audencio C" A+uilera and S(O. Si*plicio 8" 8e<asa as well as Sofronio Vicencio/ despite notice" 8aterial
witness Sofronio Vicencio who had to identif- the alle+ed falsified docu*ent also was not present for the reason that
he was alread- not connected with the 2atan+as (rovincial :ail where he used to ,e a provincial <ailer" =e could not
,e contacted an-*ore"
Section . of #epu,lic Act No" 34;& provides/ 8andator- (retrial in Cri*inal Cases" In all cri*inal cases
co+niFa,le ,- the 8unicipal Trial Court/ 8unicipal Circuit Trial Court/ 8etropolitan Trial Court/ #e+ional Trial
Court and the Sandi+an,a-an/ the <ustice or <ud+e shall/ after arrai+n*ent/ order a pretrial conference to consider
the followin+9
'a) (lea ,ar+ainin+D
',) Stipulation of 7actsD
'c) 8ar5in+ for identification of evidence of partiesD
'd) >aiver of o,<ections to ad*issi,ilit- of evidenceD and
'e) Such other *atters as will pro*ote a fair and e?piditious 'sic) trial"
It is evident that the presence of the co*plainin+ witnesses is li5ewise *andator- ,ecause the- have to participate in
the plea ,ar+ainin+ and the stipulation of facts"
Cpon *otion of the accused on the +round that the presence of the co*plainin+ witnesses is li5ewise *andator- and
that the accused is entitled to speed- trial/ the Court was co*pelled to dis*iss the case" Said dis*issal is neither
capricious and precipitate" The prosecution *ust li5ewise endeavor to secure the presence of its co*plainin+
witnesses or an- witnesses ,- an- for* of co**unication such as telephone/ tele+ra*/ or letter" That is the essence
of vi+orous and ade1uate prosecution" In fact prosecutors *ust interview their witnesses ,efore the trial or ,efore
the hearin+ in Court" There were instances in the past when the trial prosecutor *anifested to the Court that it had
no witnesses and *oved for the dis*issal of the case durin+ arrai+n*ent and pretrial" E?perience showed that
in such cases/ prolon+in+ the case was an e?ercise in futilit-" If it was precipitate/ then the prosecution had
co**itted it"
[3]
The (eople of the (hilippines/ throu+h the Office of the Solicitor !eneral/ filed a petition for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals under #ule $% of the 1;;6 #ules of Cri*inal (rocedure/ as a*ended/ for the nullification of the
orders of the trial court" The (eople alle+ed that the trial court acted without <urisdiction or with +rave a,use of
discretion a*ountin+ to e?cess or lac5 of <urisdiction in orderin+ the dis*issal of the case and den-in+ its
*otion for reconsideration"
On April &/ .001/ the Court of Appeals rendered a decision dis*issin+ the petition on the +round that the errors
co**itted ,- the trial court were *ere errors of <ud+*ent which are not correcti,le ,- a writ of certiorari" The
appellate court also stated that a reinstate*ent of Cri*inal Case No" 106$$ will place the private respondent in
dou,le <eopard-"
A++rieved/ petitioner filed the present petition for the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals"
(etitioner alle+es that the Court of Appeals co**itted a reversi,le error in rulin+ that the trial court did not
co**it +rave a,use of discretion a*ountin+ to e?cess or lac5 of <urisdiction when it dis*issed Cri*inal Case No"
106$$ si*pl- ,ecause three witnesses of its eleven witnesses failed to appear at the initial pretrial of the case" In
fact/ #"A" 34;& does not contain an- provision which *andates a trial court to dis*iss a cri*inal case for failure
of the witnesses of the prosecution to appear at the pretrial"
The petition is i*pressed with *erit"
Cnder #"A" 34;&/ the a,sence durin+ pretrial of an- witness for the prosecution listed in the Infor*ation/
whether or not said witness is the offended part- or the co*plainin+ witness/ is not a valid +round for the dis*issal
of a cri*inal case" Althou+h under the law/ pretrial is *andator- in cri*inal cases/ the presence of the private
co*plainant or the co*plainin+ witness is however not re1uired" Even the presence of the accused is not re1uired
unless directed ,- the trial court"
[;]
It is enou+h that the accused is represented ,- his counsel"
Indeed/ even if none of the witnesses listed in the infor*ation for the State appeared for the pretrial/ the sa*e
can and should proceed" After all/ the pu,lic prosecutor appeared for the State" The pu,lic prosecutor is vested with
authorit- to consider those *atters catalo+ued in Section . of #"A" 34;&"
The trial court thus acted without <urisdiction when it dis*issed the case *erel- ,ecause none of the witnesses
notified ,- the trial court appeared for the pretrial" The State/ li5e the accused is also entitled to due process in
cri*inal cases"
[10]
The order of the trial court dis*issin+ the cri*inal case deprived the State of its ri+ht to prosecute
and prove its case" Said order is/ therefore/ void for lac5 of <urisdiction/ and is of no effect"
[11]
2- its rulin+/ this
Court is not a,ettin+ or even +lossin+ over the failure of the three witnesses of the prosecution to appear at the initial
pretrial of the case" Said witnesses *a- ,e cited ,- the trial court in conte*pt of court if their a,sence was
un<ustified" Cndue dela- in the prosecution of the case should not also ,e condoned" 2ut the ri+ht of the State to
prosecute the case and prove the cri*inal lia,ilit- of the private respondent for the cri*e char+ed should not ,e
derailed and st-*ied ,- precipitate and capricious dis*issal of the case at the initial pretrial sta+e" To do <ustice to
private respondent and in<ustice to the State is no <ustice at all" :ustice *ust ,e done to all the parties ali5e" Not too
lon+ a+o this Court ruled in Dimatulac vs. Villon9
[1.]
The <ud+e/ on the other hand/ Jshould alwa-s ,e i*,ued with a hi+h sense of dut- and responsi,ilit- in the
dischar+e of his o,li+ation to pro*ptl- and properl- ad*inister <ustice"K =e *ust view hi*self as a priest/ for the
ad*inistration of <ustice is a5in to a reli+ious crusade" Thus/ e?ertin+ the sa*e devotion as a priest Jin the
perfor*ance of the *ost sacred cere*onies of reli+ious litur+-/K the <ud+e *ust render service with i*partialit-
co**ensurate with the pu,lic trust and confidence reposed in hi*" Althou+h the deter*ination of a cri*inal case
,efore a <ud+e lies within his e?clusive <urisdiction and co*petence/ his discretion is not unfettered/ ,ut rather *ust
,e e?ercised within reasona,le confines" The <ud+eLs action *ust not i*pair the su,stantial ri+hts of the accused/
nor the ri+ht of the State and offended part- to due process of law"
Indeed/ for <ustice to prevail/ the scales *ust ,alanceD <ustice is not to ,e dispensed for the accused alone" The
interests of societ- and the offended parties which have ,een wron+ed *ust ,e e1uall- considered" Veril-/ a verdict
of conviction is not necessaril- a denial of <usticeD and an ac1uittal is not necessaril- a triu*ph of <usticeD for/ to the
societ- offended and the part- wron+ed/ it could also *ean in<ustice" :ustice then *ust ,e rendered evenhandedl-
to ,oth the accused/ on one hand/ and the State and offended part-/ on the other"
The Court of Appeals also erred in rulin+ that the reinstate*ent of the case does not place the private
respondent in dou,le <eopard-" This Court ruled in Saldana vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
[1&]
that9
>hen the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunit- to prosecute and prove its case/ its ri+ht to due process is
there,- violated 'C- vs" !enato/ H&6&;;/ %6 SC#A 1.& [8a- .;/ 1;64]D Serino vs" Moa/ H&&11$/ 40 SC#A 4&&
[Au+" &1/ 1;61]D (eople vs" !o*eF/ H..&4%/ .0 SC#A .;& [8a- .;/ 1;$6]D (eople vs" 2alisacan/ H.$&6$/ 16
SC#A 111; [Au+" &1/ 1;$$])"
The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of ,asic constitutional ri+hts/ courts are ousted of their
<urisdiction" Thus/ the violation of the StateBs ri+ht to due process raises a serious <urisdiction issue '!u*a,on vs"
Director of the 2ureau of (risons/ H&000.$/ &6 SC#A 4.0 [:an" &0/ 1;61]) which cannot ,e +lossed over or
disre+arded at will" >here the denial of the funda*ental ri+ht of due process is apparent/ a decision rendered in
disre+ard of that ri+ht is void for lac5 of <urisdiction 'Aduca-en vs" 7lores/ H&0&60/ [8a- .%/ 1;6&] %1 SC#A 63D
Shell Co" vs" Ena+e/ H&01111./ 4; SC#A 41$ [7e," .6/ 1;6&])" An- <ud+*ent or decision rendered
notwithstandin+ such violation *a- ,e re+arded as a Nlawless thin+/ which can ,e treated as an outlaw and slain at
si+ht/ or i+nored wherever it e?hi,its its headB 'Aduca-en vs" 7lores/ supra)"
#espondent :ud+eBs dis*issal order dated :ul- 6/ 1;$6 ,ein+ null and void for lac5 of <urisdiction/ the sa*e does not
constitute a proper ,asis for a clai* of dou,le <eopard- 'Serino vs" Mosa/ supra.)"
??? ??? ???
Thus/ apparentl-/ to raise the defense of dou,le <eopard-/ three re1uisites *ust ,e present9 '1) a first <eopard- *ust
have attached prior to the secondD '.) the first <eopard- *ust have ,een validl- ter*inatedD and '&) the second
<eopard- *ust ,e for the sa*e offense as that in the first"
He+al <eopard- attaches onl- 'a) upon a valid indict*ent/ ',) ,efore a co*petent court/ 'c) after arrai+n*ent/ 'd) a
valid plea havin+ ,een enteredD and 'e) the case was dis*issed or otherwise ter*inated without the e?press consent
of the accused '(eople vs" Gla+an/ %3 (hil" 3%1)" The lower court was not co*petent as it was ousted of its
<urisdiction when it violated the ri+ht of the prosecution to due processs"
In effect/ the first <eopard- was never ter*inated/ and the re*and of the cri*inal case for further hearin+ and@or trial
,efore the lower courts a*ounts *erel- to a continuation of the first <eopard-/ and does not e?pose the accused to a
second <eopard-" ""
"N L"G! OF ALL !E FOREGO"NG/ the petition is !#ANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of
Appeals and the Orders of respondent #e+ional Trial Court/ 'Anne?es JA/K JC/K and JEK of the petition/) are SET
ASIDE" #espondent #e+ional Trial Court is ordered to #EINSTATE (eople vs" 8ario Austria/ Cri*inal Case No"
106$$ in the doc5et of the court"
#O ORDERED.