G.R. No. 33877 - People vs. Gimena

A special civil action for certiorari was filed by the People of the Philippines seeking to nullify the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City dated October 27, 1987, in Criminal Case No. 0-51672.
The petition targets the decision rendered by Honorable Pedro T. Santiago (in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 101 RTC Quezon City) and involves the case against Segundina Rosario y Sembrano.
The petition raises two principal issues:

Whether double jeopardy attaches when an acquittal is rendered without a trial on the merits; and
Whether the private offended party (in this instance, represented by the University of the Philippines) may file a special civil action for certiorari challenging the acquittal without the intervention of the Solicitor General.

On June 2, 1987, an information for violation of Presidential Decree No. 772 was filed by the Assistant City Fiscal of Quezon City against Segundina Rosario y Sembrano.
The information alleged that, on or about December 16, 1986, and for some time prior thereto, the accused unlawfully occupied and possessed a portion of land owned by the University of the Philippines, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 9462, by constructing a house without the consent of the owner.

During arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty.
At the pre-trial conference on August 14, 1987, the accused asserted that she possessed a valid title, a building permit, and a survey plan covering the disputed land.
The trial court issued an order directing both parties to submit their proffer of documentary exhibits and respective position papers on whether the case should be heard or dismissed.

The prosecution, through a private prosecutor, filed a detailed position paper, claiming that the property belonged to the University of the Philippines and contended that the accused’s title was defective—not covering the lot where the structure was built, as it showed the property to be located in Marikina rather than Quezon City.
The accused submitted a proffer of exhibits including a title, building permit, survey plan, tax declaration, and relocation plan with supporting field notes, asserting her right to build on the lot and informing U.P. of her claim to avoid intrusion.

The University of the Philippines opposed the accused’s proffer on several grounds:

The evidence was not marked during the pre-trial as required under Rule 118, Sections 1 and 2 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
The manifestation accompanying the proffer lacked legal basis.
The alleged title of the accused did not correspond to the actual location of the property in contention.

Despite the conflicting positions and the procedural objections raised, the respondent judge rendered a decision on October 27, 1987, acquitting the accused without a trial on the merits.
The decision was based on the observation that there existed conflicting documentary evidence regarding the ownership of the land, leading the judge to conclude that the prosecution’s evidence was inadequate to prove that the accused built the structure illegally.
The judge noted that the Torrens title of the accused could not be collaterally attacked; its validity should be determined in a separate action.
The decision was rendered without affording the prosecution the opportunity to completely present and rebut evidence, thereby bypassing a full trial on the merits.

The petition argues that the premature acquittal amounted to a grave abuse of discretion and a violation of due process, as the prosecution was denied its opportunity to present its case fully.
It was also contended that the rules on pre-trial under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure were misconstrued, particularly regarding the proper marking and admissibility of evidence, leading to an improper resolution of the case.
Lastly, the petition raised the issue of whether double jeopardy could bar a new prosecution, given that the accused had been acquitted without a trial on the merits.

Whether double jeopardy attaches when an acquittal is rendered by the trial court without a full trial on the merits.
Whether the prosecution’s right to due process was violated because it was not given the opportunity to present its case or rebut the accused’s evidence prior to the acquittal.

Capacity of the Private Offended Party to Initiate a Special Civil Action for Certiorari

Whether the private offended party or complainant (i.e., the University of the Philippines) can independently file a special civil action for certiorari challenging the trial court’s decision of acquittal.
Whether such action can be undertaken without the intervention or representation by the Solicitor General, given that only the Solicitor General generally represents the People of the Philippines on appeal in criminal matters, yet the private party has an interest in the civil liabilities arising from the case.