PEOPLE VS GO

__________________________________________________________________________
People of the Philippines versus Jose Go and Aida Dela Rosa
GR No 201644 September 24, 2014 Perlas - Bernabe, J.
__________________________________________________________________________
FACTS
On September 28, 2000, 7 informations were filed before the RTC charging various accused,
including Go and Dela Rosa, of Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents for
allegedly defrauding Oriental Commercial Banking Corporation (OCBC)of the amount of P159,
000, 000. 00.
The arraignment underwent several postponements before trial on the merits ensued. However,
the trial also underwent series of postponements/ cancellations caused mainly by the
prosecution, leading to its failure to present its evidence despite the lapse of 5 years. This
prompted the respondents to file a Motion to Dismiss for failure to prosecute and for violation of
their right to speedy trial.
In January 9, 2008, the RTC dismissed the case, ruling that the respondents right to speedy trial
was violated. The prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC granted,
resulting to the reinstatement of the case. The respondents, thereafter, moved for reconsideration
but was denied.
The respondents, then, filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA but failed to implead the
People as party to the case. The CA, without first ordering respondents to implead the People,
annulled and set aside the RTC order, resulting to the dismissal of the case.
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), the private complainant, moved for
reconsideration, which was denied. PDIC transmitted copies of the CA decision to the OSG
resulting to the filing of the instant petition. The OSG contended, among others, that the People,
who is the petitioner in this case, was neither impleaded nor served a copy of the petition,
thereby violating its right to due process of law, hence, rendering the CA without authority to
promulgate its issuances.
ISSUE
WON the criminal case against Go and Dela Rosa were properly dismissed by the CA, without
the People, as represented by the OSG, having been impleaded.
RULING
No, the CA erred in dismissing the case without impleading the People.
The People is an indispensable party to the proceedings and Sec 7 Rule 3 of the Rules on Civil
Procedure defines indispensable parties to be parties-in-interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action. The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to
vest the court with jurisdiction, absence of which, renders all subsequent actions of the court null
ad void for want of authority to act, not only to the absent parties but even as to those present.