G.R. No. 197056 - Zaldivar vs. People

Petitioner Fe P. Zaldivar and co-accused Jeanette Artajo were charged with Estafa filed by respondent Mamerto B. Dumasis before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, initially raffled to Branch 33.
A pre-trial conference was conducted on February 15, 2005, resulting in a Pre-Trial Order. Both accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.

During trial, the prosecution presented witnesses Alma Dumasis and Delia Surmieda, who only identified their affidavits as their direct testimonies.
Zaldivar’s counsel waived cross-examination; Artajo’s counsel was deemed to have waived this right due to absence despite notice.
Mamerto Dumasis filed a Motion for Inhibition against the presiding judge, Virgilio Patag; granted, and the case was re-raffled to Branch 23, presided by Judge Edgardo Catilo.

Nullifying and setting aside prior proceedings due to procedural due process concerns, particularly because only affidavits were presented as direct testimonies.
Denying the admission of the prosecution’s exhibits as premature, setting the case anew for pre-trial conference scheduled on January 19, 2006.

Zaldivar filed a Motion to Declare Prosecution’s Case Terminated (January 16, 2006), denied by the RTC on March 10, 2006, with a subsequent Motion for Reconsideration denied on June 20, 2006.

Zaldivar elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, raising:

Whether the prosecution’s presentation of only affidavits failed to prove the crime, warranting dismissal.
Whether Judge Catilo’s nullification of proceedings and new pre-trial order constituted grave abuse of discretion.

On May 31, 2010, the CA set aside the RTC orders and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial.
The CA ruled:

The determination of evidence sufficiency is within the trial court’s discretion and not for summary disposition at this stage.
Judge Catilo committed grave abuse of discretion by nullifying proceedings and ordering a second pre-trial conference.
Instead of nullification, procedural lapses could have been addressed by recalling witnesses as per Section 9, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

The denial to admit prosecution’s exhibits terminated the case due to failure to present competent evidence.
The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Nullification and new pre-trial violated the protection against double jeopardy and repeated prosecution on the same information.

Whether the presentation of only the affidavits of prosecution witnesses, without their oral testimonies, was insufficient to prove the crime charged, thus warranting dismissal of the case.
Whether the RTC, Branch 23, committed grave abuse of discretion by nullifying the prior proceedings and setting a new pre-trial conference.
Whether the order to conduct a new pre-trial conference violated the petitioner’s right against double jeopardy or subjecting her to repeated trial on the same information.