People v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originated from a criminal charge of bigamy filed against Nello Y. Roa. During the trial, the defense sought to introduce oral testimony from former Judge Roman A. Cruz to establish that Roa's wife, Elena Muñoz, had previously obtained a decree of divorce. The prosecution objected to this method of proving the divorce. 2. Procedural History: The prosecution's objection to the oral testimony regarding the divorce decree was overruled by the trial court. Subsequently, the prosecution filed a petition for a writ of prohibition with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-2340), which was dismissed. Judge Cruz was then permitted to testify. Following this, the prosecution moved to strike Judge Cruz's testimony, and upon denial, filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-2483), which was also denied. Thereafter, the private prosecutors filed the present petition for declaratory relief. 3. The Petition: Attorneys Eulogio R. Lerum and G. Viola Fernando, acting as private prosecutors in the bigamy case, filed a petition for declaratory relief. They sought to test the sufficiency and probative value of former Judge Roman A. Cruz's oral testimony concerning a divorce decree he allegedly issued. The petition was filed under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, but the Supreme Court ultimately found that the petitioners lacked the necessary personality and interest to file such a petition, and that the subject matter did not fall within the scope of declaratory relief as it did not pertain to a written instrument, statute, or ordinance.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners have the necessary personality and interest to file the petition for declaratory relief. Whether the subject matter of the petition is among those that can be determined by way of declaratory relief under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court dismissing the petition for declaratory relief. The Court held that the petitioners lacked the personality to file the petition and that the subject matter did not fall within the scope of declaratory relief as defined by Rule 66.
Ratio Decidendi
On the personality and interest of the petitioners: The petitioners, as private prosecutors in a criminal case, can only intervene subject to the control of the City Attorney. The City Attorney, who is the proper official to represent the People of the Philippines in criminal actions, refused to join the petition for declaratory relief, indicating the government's lack of interest. Therefore, the private prosecutors are not the proper parties to file such a petition, as all criminal actions must be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. On the subject matter for declaratory relief: Rule 66 of the Rules of Court limits declaratory relief to questions of construction or validity arising under a deed, will, contract, other written instrument, statute, or ordinance. The subject matter of the petition, which concerns the sufficiency or probative value of oral evidence regarding a divorce decree, does not refer to any written instrument, statute, or ordinance. The court trying the bigamy case has the ample power and authority to pass upon such evidentiary matters. This Court cannot determine the correctness of the ruling in the bigamy case at this stage, as the case is still pending. The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies, meaning matters not expressly mentioned are excluded.
Main Doctrine
A petition for declaratory relief under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court is not the proper remedy to test the sufficiency or probative value of oral evidence concerning a divorce decree, as the rule is limited to questions of construction or validity arising under a deed, will, contract, other written instrument, statute, or ordinance.