G.R. No. 230018 - Lazaro vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 230018)

Factual Background

On October 25, 2009, Gian Dale Galindez died after an apparent jump from the 26th floor of the Renaissance 2000 Condominium while in the presence of Norman Alfred F. Lazaro and Kevin Jacob Escalona. The deceased's father filed a criminal complaint for Giving Assistance to Suicide under Article 253, Revised Penal Code against Lazaro and Escalona. The Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City (OCP Pasig) found probable cause and filed an Information before the RTC. Lazaro and Escalona sought review by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which initially granted relief but the OCP Pasig later reinstated its resolution to file charges.

RTC Proceedings and the October 23, 2013 Order

An Information was filed on May 17, 2010, and Lazaro was arraigned on February 9, 2011. On August 13, 2013, Escalona filed a Motion to Quash alleging that the facts charged did not constitute an offense. The RTC issued an Order dated October 23, 2013 that contained an internally inconsistent fallo: its text declared the Motion to Quash granted but the body expressly stated the court was "not yet ready to order the dismissal" and indicated the prosecution should be given the opportunity to correct defects by amendment pursuant to Sections 4 and 5, Rule 117. The dispositive language nevertheless directed the filing of an Amended Information within ten days from receipt.

Filings After the October 23, 2013 Order and RTC Clarification

The OCP Pasig filed a Compliance/Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Information on December 6, 2013, attaching an Amended Information that dropped Escalona; the filing occurred seventeen days after receipt of the October 23, 2013 Order. Lazaro moved to expunge the Amended Information. The prosecution, through its private prosecutor, filed a Motion for Clarification on March 28, 2014, pointing out the contradiction in the October 23, 2013 Order. On August 4, 2014 the RTC issued the First Assailed Order which amended the dispositive portion of the October 23, 2013 Order to reflect that the court intended to afford the prosecution a ten-day period to correct defects by amendment under Section 4, Rule 117, and that the motion to quash would be granted only if the prosecution failed to amend or the amended information remained defective. Lazaro filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated September 29, 2014, which the RTC denied in its Second Assailed Order dated January 21, 2015.

Proceedings in the Court of Appeals

Lazaro filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals challenging the RTC's clarification and its admission of the Amended Information. The CA, in its Decision dated June 16, 2016, denied the petition and later denied reconsideration in its Resolution dated February 15, 2017. The CA held that the October 23, 2013 Order should be read as effectively denying the Motion to Quash by giving the prosecution an opportunity to amend, that the matter was interlocutory and subject to amendment by the trial court, and that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in clarifying its prior order and admitting the belated Amended Information.

Issue Presented

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals committed a serious reversible error by affirming the RTC's modification or clarification of its October 23, 2013 Order and its admission of the Amended Information despite the prosecution's belated compliance.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the CA Decision dated June 16, 2016 and CA Resolution dated February 15, 2017. The Court held that the RTC never dismissed the criminal case and therefore committed no error in clarifying and amending its earlier ambiguous fallo. The Court also found no grave abuse of discretion in admitting the Amended Information filed beyond the ten-day period previously set by the RTC. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court on September 20, 2017, which restrained the Presiding Judge of the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 261, from further proceeding with Criminal Case No. 142883, was lifted.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court analyzed the internal contradiction between the fallo and the body of the RTC's October 23, 2013 Order and invoked the settled exception to the rule that the fallo controls: where the body plainly shows a contrary intention and demonstrates a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body may prevail. The Court found the body unequivocally showed the RTC's intention to give the prosecution an opportunity to amend under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 117, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure rather than to effect a dismissal. The Court reiterated the mandatory rule that when a motion to quash is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution must be afforded an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment and that the motion should be granted only if the prosecution fails to amend or the amended information still suffers from the same defect. The Court relied on its prior decisions, including People v. Andrade and People v. Sandiganbayan, for this proposition. The Court further held that the RTC properly exercised its inherent power under Section 5, Rule 135, Rules of Court to amend and control its orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. Regarding the belated filing of the Amended Information, the Court observed that the Rules do not prescribe a fixed period for the filing of an amended information when so ordered by the court and that the ten-day period was set by the RTC in its discretion; the trial court may, in the exercise of judicial discretion and in the interest of substantial justice, admit a pleading filed aft

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 230018)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Norman Alfred F. Lazaro, Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court challenging the Court of Appeals' denial of his Rule 65 certiorari petition.
People of the Philippines, Respondent was the prosecuting party in Criminal Case No. 142883 for Giving Assistance to Suicide against Lazaro and a co-accused.
The petition assailed the Court of Appeals' Decision dated June 16, 2016 and Resolution dated February 15, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 139927.
The reliefs sought included setting aside the RTC Orders dated October 23, 2013 (original), August 4, 2014 (clarification), and January 21, 2015 (denial of reconsideration).
The Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution.

Key Factual Allegations

On October 25, 2009, Gian Dale Galindez purportedly jumped from the 26th floor of Renaissance 2000 Condominium and died in the presence of Lazaro and Kevin Jacob Escalona.
The deceased's father filed a criminal complaint for Giving Assistance to Suicide, Article 253, Revised Penal Code, against Lazaro and Escalona.
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City found probable cause and filed an Information charging the accused before the RTC.
Escalona moved to quash the Information on the ground that the facts charged did not constitute an offense, and Lazaro joined in contesting the prosecution's subsequent actions.

Procedural History

The Office of the City Prosecutor's initial filing was followed by a DOJ grant of a petition for review and then reinstatement of the prosecutor's resolution on motion for reconsideration.
An Information was filed on May 17, 2010, and Lazaro was arraigned on February 9, 2011 where a plea of not guilty was entered for him.
The RTC issued an Order dated October 23, 2013 that contained a fallo granting the Motion to Quash while the body indicated reluctance to dismiss and directed an amended information to be filed within ten days.
The prosecution filed a Compliance/Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Information on December 6, 2013, seventeen days after receipt of the RTC order, thereby filing belatedly.
Lazaro filed motions to expunge and a motion for reconsideration, thereafter prompting the RTC to issue an August 4, 2014 Order clarifying its October 23, 2013 Order and a January 21, 2015 Order denying reconsideration.
Lazaro filed a certiorari petition under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, which denied relief, leading to the present Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court.

Trial Court Orders

The RTC's October 23, 2013 Order contained an internally inconsistent fallo that both "granted" the Motion to Quash and directed the filing of an amended information within ten days.
The RTC, by Order dated August 4, 2014, clarified the October 23, 2013 Order by amending its dispositive portion to state that the Information was defective and to give the prosecution ten days to amend pursuant to Section 4, Rule 117, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The RTC denied Lazaro's motion for reconsideration in its January 21,