Fenequito v. Vergara
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents filed by respondent Bernardo Vergara, Jr. against petitioners Rosa H. Fenequito, Corazon E. Hernandez, and Lauro H. Rodriguez. The complaint alleged that petitioners committed falsification, leading to the filing of an Information with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. Procedural History: The MeTC initially dismissed the case for lack of probable cause. However, the respondent, with the conformity of the public prosecutor, appealed this dismissal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC reversed the MeTC's order, setting aside the dismissal and directing the MeTC to proceed with the trial. Petitioners then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed their petition, ruling that the RTC's decision was interlocutory and therefore not appealable. The CA subsequently denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners seek review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Resolutions that dismissed their petition for review and denied their motion for reconsideration. They argue that the CA erred in dismissing their petition, contending that the RTC's decision was final and appealable, and that even if the remedy was improper, the rules should be relaxed due to substantial justice concerns. Petitioners also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for probable cause and the authority of the City Prosecutor to file the appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review on the ground that the remedy availed of by petitioners was improper, and whether the fiscal had the authority to appeal. Whether strict enforcement of the Rules may be suspended in the interest of justice, and whether probable cause exists to indict petitioners for falsification.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated March 9, 2006 and May 22, 2006 in CA-G.R. CR No. 29648.
Ratio Decidendi
On the impropriety of the remedy and the fiscal's authority to appeal: The Court held that the Decision of the RTC setting aside the MeTC's dismissal and directing the latter to proceed to trial is interlocutory in nature and not appealable via a petition for review. The remedy of appeal from such an interlocutory order is generally frowned upon. Furthermore, the fiscal, or City Prosecutor, has the authority to represent the People of the Philippines in criminal proceedings before trial courts, including filing an appeal with the RTC when a case is dismissed by the MeTC. This authority stems from Executive Order No. 292 and Presidential Decree No. 1275. The appeal was filed with the express conformity of the public prosecutor, thus validating the appeal. On the failure to comply with procedural rules and the existence of probable cause: The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the law. Petitioners failed to comply with Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, which requires the submission of clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts. Even if the rules were relaxed, the Court found no cogent reason to depart from the CA's ruling. The PNP Crime Laboratory's report, while qualified, indicated divergences in the signatures, suggesting they were not written by the same person. The report, therefore, created probable cause to indict petitioners for falsification.
Main Doctrine
An order of the Regional Trial Court setting aside a Metropolitan Trial Court's dismissal of a criminal case and directing the latter to proceed to trial is interlocutory and not appealable via a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, strict adherence to procedural rules is required, and failure to submit required documents is a ground for dismissal.