Title
Aquino vs. Sison
Case
G.R. No. 86025
Decision Date
Nov 28, 1989
A firearm possession case dismissed prematurely based on hearsay evidence; Supreme Court nullified dismissal, citing due process violations and grave abuse of discretion.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 86025)

Facts:

1. Filing of the Information:

  • On February 29, 1988, an information was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Dagupan City, charging private respondent Rodolfo Mejia, alias "Ruding," with the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm. Nine (9) persons were listed as prosecution witnesses.

2. Arraignment and Plea:

  • Upon arraignment, private respondent entered a plea of "not guilty."

3. Presentation of Evidence:

  • The prosecution began presenting its evidence, with complainant Virgilio Quinto as the first witness. During cross-examination, Quinto admitted that both he and private respondent were subjected to paraffin tests.

4. Motion to Dismiss:

  • After Quinto's cross-examination, the defense verbally moved for the dismissal of the case, citing insufficiency of evidence. The prosecution objected to this motion.

5. Dismissal Order:

  • On October 14, 1988, respondent Judge Deodoro J. Sison granted the motion to dismiss, stating that the evidence was insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The property bond posted for the accused's provisional liberty was also canceled and released.

6. Motion for Reconsideration:

  • On October 24, 1988, petitioners (Provincial Prosecutor Rodolfo R. Aquino and Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Severino B. Bugarin) filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by respondent Judge on November 21, 1988. The judge based his denial on the Chemistry Report Nos. C-88-37 and C-88-38, which showed that Quinto tested positive for nitrates while Mejia tested negative, leading the judge to conclude that Quinto, not Mejia, was in possession of the firearm.

7. Petition for Certiorari:

  • Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, seeking to nullify the dismissal orders and requesting a writ of mandamus to compel the reinstatement of Criminal Case No. D-8439.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Due Process Violation:

    • The Court held that the respondent judge violated the prosecution's right to due process by dismissing the case before the prosecution had rested its case. Under Section 15, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence can only be filed after the prosecution has rested its case. The dismissal was therefore premature.
  2. Hearsay Evidence:

    • The Chemistry Report Nos. C-88-37 and C-88-38 were considered hearsay evidence because they were not formally identified or testified to by the NBI Forensic Chemist, Felisa Vigulla-Borcelis. The Court emphasized that any evidence must be formally offered and properly identified before it can be considered by the court.
  3. Double Jeopardy:

    • The Court ruled that double jeopardy would not attach in this case because the dismissal was made with grave abuse of discretion. A dismissal that is capricious and tainted with grave abuse of discretion does not bar the reinstatement of the case.
  4. Reglementary Period for Certiorari:

    • The Court did not explicitly address this issue in the ruling, as it was not central to the resolution of the case.
  5. Grave Abuse of Discretion:

    • The Court found that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing the case based on hearsay evidence and before the prosecution had completed its presentation of evidence. This act exhibited a blatant disregard for established procedural laws.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court granted the petition, nullified the dismissal orders, and ordered the case to be re-raffled to another sala to ensure impartiality. The Court emphasized the importance of due process and the proper handling of evidence in criminal proceedings.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.