People v. Marcial
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Two informations were filed against respondents, SPO1 Mario Marcial and five other police officers, for homicide and frustrated homicide in connection with a shooting incident on December 18, 1999. The incident resulted in the death of Junnyver Dagle and serious injury to Wendell Sales. The respondents, members of the PNP, were on patrol when they allegedly shot Dagle and Sales, who were riding a motorcycle. Procedural History: The respondents pleaded not guilty. A pre-trial order was issued, approving a partial stipulation of facts and issues. The parties stipulated on the identity and affiliation of the respondents, their response to a call for assistance, their encounter with Dagle and Sales, the shooting incident, the injuries sustained by Dagle (fatal) and Sales (serious), and other related facts including the existence of a prior robbery case against Sales. The issues agreed upon included whether a hot pursuit occurred, if warning shots were fired, if the victims attempted to draw firearms, if Dagle fired at the respondents, and the entitlement to damages. The Petition: During the hearing on February 6, 2002, the prosecution orally moved to reverse the order of trial, arguing that the respondents admitted the acts charged but interposed lawful justifying circumstances. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied this motion. The prosecution's motion for reconsideration was also denied. The People of the Philippines then filed a petition for review, assailing the RTC's orders.
Issue(s)
Whether an order denying a party's motion to modify or reverse the order of trial in a criminal case is appealable. Assuming the order is appealable, whether it is mandatory for a trial court to modify or reverse the order of trial when an accused admits the offense but interposes a lawful defense.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review for lack of merit. It held that the RTC did not commit reversible error in denying the request for a reverse order of trial, as this matter is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a denial of a motion to reverse the order of trial is interlocutory in nature and thus not appealable.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appealability of the order denying the motion to reverse the order of trial: The Court held that the denial of a motion to reverse the order of trial is interlocutory in nature. An interlocutory order is one that does not finally decide the merits of the case but leaves something for future determination. Such orders are not subject to appeal, as appeals are generally allowed only from final judgments or orders that completely dispose of the case. The Court emphasized that the rule relied upon by the petitioner, Section 3(e) of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, clearly states that 'the order of trial may be modified,' indicating a discretionary power of the trial court, not a mandatory one. Therefore, the RTC's denial of the motion was a proper exercise of its discretion and not an appealable order. On whether modification of the order of trial is mandatory when an accused admits the act but interposes a lawful defense: The Court reiterated that the modification of the order of trial when an accused admits the act but interposes a lawful defense is discretionary. Both Section 3(e) of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8493 (Speedy Trial Act), as well as its implementing Circular No. 38-98, use the permissive term 'may modify.' This signifies that the trial court has the discretion to allow a modification of the order of trial, but it is not compelled to do so. The RTC correctly considered that a reverse order of trial might not necessarily speed up the proceedings and that the pre-trial order, agreed upon by the parties, did not include such an agreement. Thus, the RTC's decision to maintain the usual order of trial was a valid exercise of its discretion.
Main Doctrine
The denial of a motion to reverse or modify the order of trial in a criminal case, which is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, is an interlocutory order and therefore not appealable.