G.R. No. L-7013 - Ferdo vs. Maglanoc

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-7013)

Factual Background

Petitioner engaged household help including a yaya, Belle Torres, and the respondent, who served as househelper. The alleged acts occurred between January and April 2006 while the child victim, identified in the record as AAA, was about three years old. A visitor’s yaya allegedly witnessed the respondent inflict physical harm upon AAA. Petitioner terminated Torres and the respondent in August 2006 upon learning of the allegation. Petitioner again encountered the respondent in the condominium common area on August 15, 2010 and then queried AAA, who recounted repeated physical abuse, including hitting and deprivation of meals. AAA later testified in court on January 28, 2014 at age twelve to the circumstances underlying the charge.

Information and Criminal Charge

The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor filed an Information charging Amy B. Cantilla with Child Abuse under RA 7610, alleging that between January and April 2006 she knowingly and unlawfully committed acts of cruelty prejudicial to the normal growth and development of the minor child AAA. The respondent pleaded not guilty on arraignment and trial proceeded.

Trial Proceedings and Evidentiary Posture

The prosecution presented petitioner as a witness and produced NBI Supervising Agent Olga Angustia Gonzales, who took AAA’s sworn statement. Documentary evidence was formally offered on November 11, 2014. The prosecution presented AAA as witness on January 28, 2014. During trial, the defense filed a Demurrer to Evidence on April 13, 2015, contending that the prosecution failed to present the eyewitness listed in the Pre-Trial Order, “Maritoni Espiritu,” and that AAA’s testimony was unreliable because of the time lapse and the delay between the alleged incidents in 2006 and the filing in 2010.

RTC Rulings

Pursuant to Section 23, Rule 119, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 162, granted the Demurrer to Evidence and dismissed the case by Order dated July 10, 2015, concluding that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on August 19, 2015 and a motion for inhibition thereafter. The RTC denied both motions in an Order dated October 12, 2015.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition in a Resolution dated February 9, 2016 for being filed beyond the sixty-day reglementary period prescribed by Section 4, Rule 65; for defective Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping not executed in accordance with Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Notarial Rules; and for failure to implead the People of the Philippines in violation of Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. The CA denied petitioner’s Motion to Reinstate Petition in its Resolution dated June 23, 2016.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner raised three issues: (I) whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari; (II) whether RTC-162 committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the Demurrer to Evidence; and (III) whether the presiding judge committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to inhibit despite an alleged written expression of prejudice and bias against the minor victim.

Supreme Court Proceedings and Respondent’s Default

The Supreme Court afforded respondent opportunities to file a Comment. Counsel for respondent informed the Court that communication with the respondent had been lost and withdrew representation. Respondent failed to manifest conformity to counsel’s withdrawal, and the Court deemed respondent to have waived filing a Comment.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari for lack of merit and affirmed the CA’s dismissal of the petition. The Court upheld the strict application of the sixty-day reglementary period under Section 4, Rule 65, observing that the current rule provides no extension and that petitioner failed to show any compelling reason for an extension. The Court accepted the CA’s finding that the petition was filed late and that petitioner’s explanation, which attributed delay to counsel’s circumstances, lacked credence given that counsel belonged to a law firm. The Court further held that, even if the petition had been timely filed, it would fail on the merits because petitioner did not demonstrate that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated that a grant of a Demurrer to Evidence results in an acquittal, which ordinarily triggers the bar of double jeopardy; yet such acquittal remains subject to limited judicial review by certiorari under Rule 65 when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Court defined grave abuse of disc

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-7013)

Parties and Posture

BBB filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals Resolutions dated February 9, 2016 and June 23, 2016.
AMY B. CANTILLA was the respondent in the criminal case and the respondent in the petition for review.
The Court of Appeals dismissed BBB's petition for certiorari for being filed beyond the reglementary period and for procedural defects.
The challenged RTC orders were the July 10, 2015 dismissal by reason of demurrer to evidence and the October 12, 2015 denial of reconsideration and inhibition motions in Criminal Case No. 145929-SJ.

Factual Allegations

The Information charged AMY B. CANTILLA with child abuse under RA 7610 for acts alleged to have occurred between January to April 2006 against the victim identified as AAA.
The Information alleged that the accused struck the three-year-old victim with a slipper and hand, deprived the child of meals, and inflicted other acts prejudicial to the child's development.
BBB employed Belle Torres as a yaya and retained the respondent as househelp while BBB worked abroad as a flight attendant.
A visiting friend, Maria Antonina C. Espiritu, allegedly learned through her yaya that the respondent inflicted physical harm upon AAA and later urged BBB to terminate the yaya and the respondent.
BBB terminated the services of Torres and the respondent in August 2006 and later confronted the respondent upon seeing her in August 2010, after which the complaint process ensued.

Trial Evidence

The prosecution presented BBB and NBI Supervising Agent Olga Angustia Gonzales as witnesses and formally offered documentary evidence on November 11, 2014.
The child-victim AAA testified on January 28, 2014 about the circumstances of the alleged abuse when she was three years old.
The prosecution did not present the supposed eyewitness Maritoni Espiritu who was listed in the Pre-Trial Order as a witness.
The defense filed a demurrer to evidence on April 13, 2015 asserting the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and noting gaps in eyewitness testimony and delay in filing the complaint.

RTC Orders

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 162, Pasig City, granted the demurrer to evidence on July 10, 2015 and dismissed the criminal case pursuant to Section 23, Rule 119 of the New Rules on Criminal Procedures.
BBB moved for reconsideration on August 19, 2015 and for the inhibition of the presiding judge, both of which the RTC denied in its October 12, 2015 Order.

CA Proceedings

BBB filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 143741 assailing the RTC orders.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in its February 9, 2016 Resolution for being filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period