People v. De Grano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An Information for murder was filed against Joven de Grano, Armando de Grano, Estanislao Lacaba, and others for the killing of Emmanuel Mendoza on April 21, 1991. The accused, who pleaded not guilty, subsequently filed a motion for bail, contending that the prosecution's evidence was not strong. Due to the involvement of a local mayor as one of the accused, the venue of the trial was transferred from Batangas to Manila. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially granted bail to the respondents, a decision that was later set aside by the Supreme Court, which ordered the issuance of arrest warrants. However, the case was subsequently remanded to the RTC for further proceedings. After trial, the RTC found Joven de Grano, Armando de Grano, Domingo Landicho, and Estanislao Lacaba guilty of murder. A motion for reconsideration was filed, leading the RTC to issue an Order modifying its decision by acquitting Joven and Armando, and downgrading the conviction of Domingo and Estanislao to homicide. Estanislao appealed this modified decision, while the prosecution sought reconsideration of the order. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, through the Assistant City Prosecutor and private prosecutor, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 65, arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in modifying its decision, particularly by entertaining the motion for reconsideration from respondents who had evaded arrest and failed to appear at the promulgation of the original conviction. The CA dismissed the petition, citing issues of double jeopardy and procedural defects, including the petition not being filed by the Solicitor General and the verification not being signed by the aggrieved party. The People, now through the Solicitor General, seek review of the CA's dismissal, arguing that the RTC's order was void due to the respondents' failure to appear and surrender, thus double jeopardy did not attach, and that the CA erred in dismissing the petition on technical grounds.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground of double jeopardy. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed the petition for certiorari for not having been filed by the Office of the Solicitor General nor in the name of the offended party. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error and grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground that the verification and certification attached to the petition was signed by the private counsel and not by the offended party.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are reversed and set aside. The pertinent portions of the RTC Order dated April 15, 2004, convicting Domingo Landicho of homicide and acquitting Armando de Grano and Joven de Grano, are annulled and deleted. The pertinent portions of the RTC Decision dated April 25, 2002, are reinstated to the extent altered or modified.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the petition for certiorari on the ground of double jeopardy: The Supreme Court held that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it entertained the Joint Motion for Reconsideration with respect to Joven, Armando, and Domingo, who were at-large and had not regained their standing in court. These respondents, by failing to appear at the promulgation without justifiable cause and without surrendering within 15 days, lost their remedies against the judgment. Therefore, the RTC's Order modifying the conviction was void, and no double jeopardy attached to such a void order. However, for Estanislao, who was in custody and present at the promulgation, the RTC did not err in entertaining his motion for reconsideration, and thus, double jeopardy applies to him regarding the downgrading of his conviction. On the dismissal of the petition for certiorari for not having been filed by the OSG nor in the name of the offended party: The Court found that the OSG had indeed participated and conformed to the filing of the petition, as evidenced by its instructions to the private prosecutor, the DOJ's endorsement, and the OSG's subsequent motions for extension and comment. The OSG is the legal representative of the State, which is the real party-in-interest in criminal cases. Therefore, the petition should not have been dismissed on this ground. On the dismissal of the petition for certiorari due to the verification and certification signed by private counsel: The Court applied a liberal application of the Rules, considering the circumstances. The private complainant was in hiding out of fear and could not travel to Manila to sign the verification and certification. Given the impending deadline for filing the petition for certiorari, the private prosecutor signed it to avoid dismissal. The Court held that verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement, and the certification requirement can be relaxed under justifiable circumstances, as in this case, where strict application would defeat the administration of justice. The Court also noted that the OSG's signature would have constituted substantial compliance.
Main Doctrine
A judgment of acquittal may be assailed via certiorari under Rule 65 if the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, rendering the judgment void and thus not placing the accused in double jeopardy. Accused who jump bail or escape from prison lose their standing in court and waive any right to seek relief unless they surrender and explain their absence with justifiable cause.