Salazar v. Romaquin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute began with the filing of an Information on May 12, 2001, by the Provincial Prosecutor of Aklan, charging petitioner Benito C. Salazar with murder. The Information alleged that on April 26, 2001, in Barangay Dumaguit, Municipality of New Washington, Province of Aklan, Salazar, armed with a gun, with treachery and superior strength, and with intent to kill, unlawfully attacked, assaulted, and shot Raymundo Rodriguez, causing his instantaneous death. The prosecution also claimed P100,000.00 in actual damages for the victim's family and recommended no bail. Procedural History: Following the filing of the Information, the Provincial Prosecutor moved for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, citing danger to public safety due to the political motive and upcoming elections. An arrest warrant was issued on May 12, 2001, but Salazar was not found. The case was raffled to Branch 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan, presided over by Judge Tomas R. Romaquin. Salazar, having received a copy of the joint resolution finding probable cause, filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings and to Lift Warrant of Arrest, arguing he had filed a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice and citing the presumption of innocence. He later supplemented this motion, alleging the Executive Judge who issued the warrant was disqualified due to kinship with the deceased's wife. The RTC granted the motion to suspend proceedings but denied the motion to lift the warrant. The trial court later declared the issues moot after the Secretary of Justice denied Salazar's petition for review. Salazar then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed it for failure to serve a copy on the Solicitor General. The CA denied his motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Benito C. Salazar seeks review of the Court of Appeals' resolution dismissing his petition for certiorari. He argues that the CA departed from the usual course of judicial proceedings by ignoring substantive legal issues and refusing to set aside the dismissal. Salazar contends that the exclusive authority of the Solicitor General to represent the People of the Philippines in appellate courts arises only after the court acquires jurisdiction, which occurs upon service of its order or resolution or by voluntary submission. He asserts that prior to this, service on the Provincial Prosecutor, who represented the People in the trial court, is permissible under the Rules of Court. Salazar's core argument is that the CA erred in dismissing his petition for certiorari solely on the procedural ground of improper service on the People of the Philippines, when he believes he substantially complied with the rules by serving the Provincial Prosecutor.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of improper service of the petition on the People of the Philippines. Whether service of the petition on the Provincial Prosecutor, instead of the Office of the Solicitor General, is sufficient when the appellate court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the case. Whether the Executive Judge was disqualified from issuing the warrant of arrest due to relationship with the deceased's wife, and whether the petitioner adduced sufficient evidence to prove the alleged disqualification of the Executive Judge.
Ruling
The petition is denied due course for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of improper service of the petition on the People of the Philippines: The Court held that the authority of the Provincial Prosecutor to represent the People of the Philippines is limited to proceedings before the trial court. In appeals before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, the general rule is that the Office of the Solicitor General is the sole representative of the People of the Philippines, as provided in Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code. Consequently, a copy of the petition in such actions must be served on the People of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General, as mandated by Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. Service on the Provincial Prosecutor would be inefficacious, and failure to serve on the Solicitor General is a sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court emphasized that the purpose of service is to apprise the respondent of the petition, and if served on an unauthorized counsel, any pleading filed is unauthorized and may be expunged. The Court found no reason to brush aside this procedural lapse, as the petitioner's failure to comply with the rules on service was clear. On the issue of whether service on the Provincial Prosecutor is sufficient: The Court reiterated that service on the Provincial Prosecutor is insufficient when the appellate court has not yet acquired jurisdiction, as the Office of the Solicitor General is the proper representative of the People of the Philippines in such cases. On the issue of the Executive Judge's disqualification and sufficiency of evidence: The Court noted that the petitioner's contention regarding the Executive Judge's disqualification due to relationship with the deceased's wife was raised. However, the Court found that the petitioner failed to adduce preponderant evidence in the trial court to prove such a relationship. The Court stated that the bare fact that the provincial prosecutor or private prosecutor did not specifically deny the allegation did not relieve the petitioner of his burden to prove the same with the requisite quantum of evidence. Such an allegation should have been proven during the hearing of the petitioner's motion to suspend proceedings and to lift the warrant of arrest. Since the petitioner failed to prove the alleged relationship, this ground for disqualification was not sufficiently established.
Main Doctrine
Service of a petition on the People of the Philippines in the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court must be made through the Office of the Solicitor General, not the Provincial Prosecutor, as the latter's authority is confined to trial court proceedings. Failure to comply is a ground for dismissal.