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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 230018)

Facts

On October 25, 2009, Gian Dale Galindez allegedly jumped from the 26th floor of a condominium in the presence of Lazaro and Kevin Jacob Escalona. The deceased’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 filed an Information on May 17, 2010. After a DOJ review temporarily granted relief to the accused, the OCP’s resolution was reinstated and arraignment of Lazaro occurred on February 9, 2011; a not-guilty plea was entered for him.

Motion to Quash and RTC’s October 23, 2013 Order

Escalona filed a Motion to Quash (Aug. 13, 2013) alleging the facts charged did not constitute an offense. The RTC issued an Order dated October 23, 2013 whose fallo contained internally inconsistent language: it stated the Motion to Quash was "GRANTED" (which would imply quashal and dismissal) yet also directed the OCP to file an Amended Information within ten days. The body of the order explicitly stated the court was "not yet ready to order the dismissal" and intended to give the prosecution the opportunity to amend pursuant to Sections 4 and 5, Rule 117.

Prosecution’s Amended Information and Subsequent Motions

The OCP, through a private prosecutor, filed a Compliance/Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Information on December 6, 2013—filed 17 days after receipt of the RTC’s October 23 order and thus beyond the ten-day period fixed by the RTC. The Amended Information dropped Escalona from the charges. Lazaro filed motions to expunge and opposed the prosecution’s Motion for Clarification (filed March 28, 2014). Lazaro argued the RTC’s October 23 order had become final and immutable because the prosecution had not timely filed an amended information.

RTC’s Clarification and Denial of Reconsideration

On August 4, 2014, the RTC issued an order (First Assailed Order) accepting the prosecution’s clarification and amending the dispositive/fallo of its October 23, 2013 order to reflect that the court intended to give the prosecution a ten-day period to correct the defect by amendment and that the Motion to Quash would be granted only if the prosecution failed to amend or the amendment remained defective. Lazaro’s motion for reconsideration of that clarification was denied (Second Assailed Order), the RTC reiterating that the October 23 order was never meant to dismiss the case outright.

Course of Appeals and Relief Sought

Lazaro filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA and challenged the RTC’s clarification and its admission of the belated Amended Information. The CA denied the petition (Decision dated June 16, 2016) and denied Lazaro’s motion for reconsideration (Resolution dated February 15, 2017). Lazaro then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, arguing that the RTC’s original October 23, 2013 fallo had become final and executory, thereby barring the RTC from altering it and from admitting the belated amended information.

Issue Presented

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the RTC’s modification/clarification of its earlier October 23, 2013 Order and in upholding the admission of the belated Amended Information.

Supreme Court Ruling — Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari and affirmed both the CA Decision and Resolution. The Temporary Restraining Order previously issued by the Court was lifted. The Court held that the petition lacked merit.

Reasoning — Interpretation of the October 23, 2013 Order

The Court found the dispositive portion (fallo) of the October 23, 2013 order to be contradictory to its body. While the fallo stated the Motion to Quash was "GRANTED," the body clearly indicated the RTC’s intention not to dismiss the case but instead to give the prosecution the opportunity to amend the information under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 117. Where an apparent mistake exists in the fallo that is irreconcilable with the reasoning in the body, the body may prevail to correct a manifest drafting error in the fallo.

Reasoning — Mandate of Rule 117 and Relevant Jurisprudence

The Court emphasized the mandatory process provided by Sections 4 and 5, Rule 117: when a motion to quash is based on facts that do not constitute an offense but the defect is curable, the court must give the prosecution the opportunity to amend; the motion should be granted only if the prosecution fails to amend or the amendment still suffers the same defect. The Court cited its precedents (People v. Andrade; People v. Talao Perez; People v. Sandiganbayan) establishing that courts must generally deny motions to quash where the defect is amendable and order the filing of an amended information to avoid dismissal on technical grounds and to expedite resolution on the merits.

Reasoning — RTC’s Power to Clarify and Amend Its Orders

The Court held that, given the contradiction and the clear intent expressed in the body of the October 23 order, the RTC properly exercised its authority to clarify and amend the dispositive portion. The exercise of this power was supported by the RTC’s inherent authority to "amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice" (Section 5, Rule 135).

Reasoni

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 230018)

Case Caption, Nature of the Case, and Court Action

First Division, Supreme Court of the Philippines; G.R. No. 230018; Decision dated June 23, 2021, penned by Justice Caguioa.
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order.
The Petition assails: (a) the Decision dated June 16, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Special Tenth Division (CA-G.R. SP No. 139927), and (b) the CA Resolution dated February 15, 2017 denying the Motion for Reconsideration.
The Petition seeks to set aside the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 261, Orders dated August 4, 2014 (First Assailed Order) and January 21, 2015 (Second Assailed Order) in Criminal Case No. 142883.

Parties and Key Actors

Petitioner: Norman Alfred F. Lazaro (Lazaro).
Respondent: People of the Philippines.
Co-accused: Kevin Jacob Escalona (Escalona).
Deceased victim: Gian Dale Galindez (Galindez).
Complainant in underlying criminal case: Galindez’s father (filed complaint for Giving Assistance to Suicide under Article 253, Revised Penal Code).
Prosecution bodies and actors: Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City (OCP Pasig); Department of Justice (DOJ); OCP Pasig’s authorized private prosecutor.
Trial court: RTC, Pasig City, Branch 261; Presiding Judge: Florian Gregory D. Abalajon (rendition of certain orders).
Court of Appeals panel: Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino (penalty opinion), with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Ramon Paul L. Hernando concurring.
Supreme Court concurrence in the final disposition: Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Carandang, Zalameda, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.

Chronology and Facts

October 25, 2009: Gian Dale Galindez purportedly jumped from the 26th floor of the Renaissance 2000 Condominium and died. At the time, Galindez was in the presence of Lazaro and Escalona.
A criminal complaint for Giving Assistance to Suicide (Art. 253, RPC) was filed by the deceased’s father against Lazaro and Escalona.
OCP Pasig found probable cause and filed an Information for the said crime before the RTC.
Lazaro and Escalona filed a petition for review before the DOJ, which the DOJ granted in a Resolution dated February 7, 2011; on motion for reconsideration by the complainant, however, OCP Pasig’s resolution was reinstated.
May 17, 2010: Information filed against Lazaro and Escalona before the RTC.
February 9, 2011: Lazaro arraigned; he refused to enter a plea and the court entered a plea of not guilty for him.
August 13, 2013: Escalona filed a Motion to Quash alleging the facts charged in the Information do not constitute an offense.
October 23, 2013: RTC issued an Order which (i) stated the Motion to Quash was “hereby GRANTED on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense,” and (ii) directed OCP Pasig to file an Amended Information within ten (10) days from receipt of the Order — a dispositive portion containing contradictory language.
December 6, 2013: OCP Pasig filed a Compliance/Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Information, attaching an Amended Information that dropped Escalona from the charges; this filing was 17 days from OCP Pasig’s receipt of the RTC Order and thus beyond the ten-day period set by the RTC.
Lazaro filed a Motion to Expunge to assail the Compliance/Motion to Admit Amended Information.
March 28, 2014: OCP Pasig’s authorized private prosecutor filed a Motion for Clarification pointing out the inconsistency in the dispositive portion of the RTC Order dated October 23, 2013 (granting Motion to Quash while also ordering filing of an Amended Information).
Lazaro filed another Motion to Expunge, asserting the October 23, 2013 Order had become final and immutable and thus could not be amended or clarified.
August 4, 2014: RTC issued its First Assailed Order resolving the private prosecutor’s Motion for Clarification and Lazaro’s motions to expunge, concluding the October 23, 2013 Order was inconsistent and clarifying/amending the dispositive portion to reflect the RTC’s actual intention to give the prosecution ten days to amend under Paragraph 2, Section 4, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; the amended fallo made clear that the court’s prior language was intended as an opportunity to correct the defect rather than dismissal.
September 29, 2014: Lazaro filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC’s First Assailed Order, arguing the October 23, 2013 Order had become final for failure to amend within ten days.
January 21, 2015: RTC issued its Second Assailed Order denying Lazaro’s Motion for Reconsideration and reiterating that the October 23, 2013 Order was never intended to dismiss the criminal case; the body of the October 23 Order was consistent with giving the prosecution an opportunity to amend.
Lazaro filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals challenging the RTC’s Orders.
June 16, 2016: CA issued the Assailed Decision denying Lazaro’s Petition for Certiorari, holding that the RTC’s October 23, 2013 Order should be read as ordering the filing of an Amended Information (i.e., as a denial of the Motion to Quash) and that such interlocutory rulings may be amended by the RTC.
February 15, 2017: CA denied Lazaro’s Motion for Reconsideration in an Assailed Resolution.
Result: Lazaro sought relief via Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court (this case).

Sole Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals committed a serious reversible error when it affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s modification/revision (clarification and amendment) of its earlier Order dated October 23, 2013.

Petitioner’s Main Argument

When the RTC purportedly “granted” Escalona’s Motion to Quash in its October 23, 2013 Order and the prosecution failed to file an Amended Information within the ten-day period, the Order became final and executory, effectively dismissing the case with “constitutional aftermaths.”
Because the Order had become final and executory, the RTC had no authority to correct or alter it; doing so violated the principle of immutability of final judgment and thus the RTC acted beyond its power.

Prosecution and Trial Court Procedural Actions (as reflected in the record)

OCP Pasig initially found probable cause and filed the Information.
DOJ initially granted the petition for review filed by Lazaro and Escalona (Resolution dated February 7, 2011), but on motion for reconsideration, OCP Pasig’s resolution was reinstated.
OCP Pasig, on December 6, 2013, filed a Compliance/Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Information (17 days after receipt of the RTC Order), attaching an Amended Information that omitted Escalona.
OCP Pasig’s private prosecutor filed a Motion for Clarification (March 28, 2014) calling attention to the contradictory dispositive portion of the RTC’s October 23, 2013 Order.
RTC, by First Assailed Order, exercised its power to clarify and amend the dispositive portion to conform to the body of