People v. Montilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns charges of double murder against Angelo O. Montilla and Doris P. Lapuz for the killing of Richard Escobia and Aileen Palmes-Lustre on October 25, 2003, in Buluan, Maguindanao. Initially, several individuals were charged, and subsequent reinvestigations led to Montilla and Lapuz being included as additional accused, while others were dropped for insufficient evidence. Procedural History: The case has a complex procedural history involving multiple reinvestigations, amended informations, and transfers of venue. Initially filed before the RTC-Cotabato City, Branch 15, the case saw conflicting resolutions from different prosecutors. Montilla filed a Rule 65 petition before the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the validity of an amended information, which was initially denied and later affirmed by the Supreme Court. The venue was subsequently transferred to RTC-Davao City. The RTC-Davao City, Branch 11, ordered a reinvestigation, but later inhibited itself, and the case was transferred to RTC-Davao City, Branch 16. This branch motu proprio dismissed the charges for lack of probable cause. However, the case was re-raffled to RTC-Davao City, Branch 15, which reinstated the proceedings based on judicial stability. The CA then reversed this order, reinstating the dismissal by RTC-Davao City, Branch 16. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, and the Spouses Rodolfo Palmes and Esmaelita Palmes filed separate Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They assail the CA's decision which reinstated the RTC-Davao City, Branch 16's order dismissing the criminal case against Montilla and Lapuz for lack of probable cause. The petitions argue that the CA erred in reinstating the dismissal order, particularly questioning the application of the doctrine of judicial stability and the CA's findings on probable cause.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA committed an error in reinstating the Order dated October 10, 2014, of the RTC-Davao City, Branch 16, dismissing the case against Montilla and Lapuz for lack of probable cause, specifically concerning Lapuz. Whether the death of Angelo O. Montilla extinguishes his criminal and civil liabilities; and the applicability of the doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference with a co-equal court.
Ruling
The petitions for review on certiorari are DENIED. The Decision dated January 22, 2018, and the Resolution dated August 31, 2018, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 07901-MIN are AFFIRMED. The criminal case against Angelo O. Montilla is dismissed due to his death. The Court upholds the CA's finding that there is no probable cause to indict Doris P. Lapuz.
Ratio Decidendi
On the judicial determination of probable cause against Lapuz: The Court finds no error in the CA ruling reinstating the order of dismissal in favor of Lapuz. While the OSG argued that a Rule 65 Petition is not a remedy to question a denial of a motion to quash an Information, the absence of probable cause, as determined by the RTC-Davao City, Branch 16, justifies the dismissal of the criminal charge for double murder. The judicial determination of probable cause is made by a judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. The judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under custody. In this case, the RTC-Davao City, Branch 16, found the evidence insufficient to indict Lapuz and dismissed the charge. This finding was based on the review of the Resolution of Asst. Pros. Yanson, which appeared to be based chiefly on the allegations of another accused, Reyes, and a review of Reyes' affidavit which showed Lapuz's alleged ill feelings towards Lustre. The Court found no corroborating evidence for this claim. Furthermore, it goes against common sense for Lapuz to order the killing of Escobia when they were together on board the vehicle prior to the murder. In the absence of facts and circumstances to raise a well-engendered belief that Lapuz was probably guilty, the criminal charge against her was correctly dismissed. On the death of Angelo O. Montilla and the doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference with a co-equal court: The Court finds it in order to dismiss the appeal as to Montilla, who passed away on June 6, 2021, while the petition was pending resolution. Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code states that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict. The Court has expounded that the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. This means that only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, ex delicto in senso strictiore, is extinguished. Therefore, Criminal Case No. 034-SA of the RTC-Davao City, Branch 15, is dismissed insofar as Montilla is concerned because of his death. The Court agrees that the doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of a co-equal court or a court of concurrent jurisdiction is a basic procedural precept. This doctrine states that a court that acquires jurisdiction over a subject matter retains authority over the same until finality of judgment, and other courts of concurrent jurisdiction must respect and not interfere with the court's jurisdiction. However, the doctrine finds no application when another court with concurrent jurisdiction later acquires jurisdiction pursuant to a sanctioned change of venue. In this case, the change of venue from Cotabato City to Davao City was sanctioned by the Supreme Court. The RTC-Cotabato City, Branch 15, was divested of its jurisdiction to decide the criminal case, and this jurisdiction was transferred to the RTC-Davao City. Thus, when the RTC-Davao City, Branch 16, ordered the dismissal of the criminal charges based on lack of probable cause, it acted well within its jurisdiction. The CA correctly pointed out that the RTC-Davao City, Branch 16, had complete authority to act accordingly, even to amend or reverse orders previously issued by other branches of the RTC-Cotabato City and RTC-Davao City, pursuant to a court's inherent powers under Section 5(g), Rule 135 of the Rules of Court.
Main Doctrine
The death of an accused pending appeal of a conviction extinguishes both criminal and civil liability. The doctrine of judicial stability does not apply when there is a sanctioned change of venue, as jurisdiction follows the venue. A court has the inherent power to amend and control its process and orders to conform to law and justice.