Case Digest (G.R. No. 230018)
Facts:
Norman Alfred F. Lazaro v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 230018, June 23, 2021, Supreme Court First Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Norman Alfred F. Lazaro sought review of the Court of Appeals' denial of his Rule 65 certiorari petition; the CA Special Tenth Division's Decision (June 16, 2016) and Resolution (Feb. 15, 2017) are challenged via a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.On October 25, 2009, Gian Dale Galindez allegedly jumped from a condominium building in the presence of Lazaro and Kevin Jacob Escalona. Galindez’s father filed a criminal complaint for Giving Assistance to Suicide (Art. 253, RPC) against Lazaro and Escalona; the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Pasig found probable cause and an Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 261, Presided by Judge Florian Gregory D. Abalajon. Lazaro was arraigned on February 9, 2011; a not-guilty plea was entered for him.
Escalona filed a Motion to Quash (Aug. 13, 2013); the RTC issued an Order dated October 23, 2013 that on its face both “granted” the Motion to Quash and directed the prosecution to file an Amended Information within ten days. The prosecution filed an Amended Information on December 6, 2013 (dropping Escalona), beyond the ten-day period. Lazaro moved to expunge; the prosecution (through a private prosecutor) filed a Motion for Clarification (Mar. 28, 2014) pointing out the dispositive contradiction. The RTC issued the First Assailed Order (Aug. 4, 2014) clarifying that the court did not intend to dismiss the case but meant to give the prosecution ten days to amend pursuant to Section 4, Rule 117. Lazaro’s motion for reconsideration of that clarification was denied in the Second Assailed Order (Jan. 21, 2015).
Lazaro filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals seeking to set aside the RTC’s two orders; the CA denied the petition (June 16, 2016) and denied reconsideration (Feb. 15, 201...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in affirming the RTC’s amendment/clarification of its October 23, 2013 Order (i.e., in allowing the RTC to correct its earlier fallo and to admit a belated Amended I...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)