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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 197056)

Applicable Constitutional Basis and Procedural Framework

Because the decision date is in 2016, the 1987 Philippine Constitution served as the constitutional basis for the decision. The principal procedural and evidentiary rules applied were drawn from the Rules of Court as cited in the record, including Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari), Rule 65 (certiorari), Rule 118 (pre-trial in criminal cases, Sec. 1), Rule 119 (demurrer to evidence, Sec. 23), Rule 132 (Sec. 9 on recalling witnesses), and other pertinent provisions quoted in the decision.

Key Dates and Chronology

Pre-trial and arraignment initially occurred on February 15, 2005 before RTC Branch 33. Subsequent transfer to Branch 23 followed a granted motion for inhibition; the challenged RTC orders were dated November 18, 2005 and June 20, 2006. The Court of Appeals issued its decision on May 31, 2010 and denied reconsideration on December 15, 2010. The Supreme Court rendered its resolution in 2016 affirming the Court of Appeals.

Facts — Charge and Early Proceedings

Zaldivar and co-accused Jeanette Artajo were charged with estafa by complainant Mamerto Dumasis. At the initial proceedings, a pre-trial conference produced a Pre-Trial Order dated February 15, 2005; both accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. During trial, the prosecution presented witnesses (Alma Dumasis and Delia Surmieda) whose affidavits were offered and identified as constituting their direct testimony. The accused’s counsel (for Zaldivar) declined to cross-examine those witnesses, and Artajo’s counsel was absent and deemed to have waived cross-examination.

Procedural Development — Change of Venue and Trial Court Orders

After a Motion for Inhibition against Judge Virgilio Patag was filed by Dumasis and granted, the case was re-raffled to Branch 23 (Judge Catilo). Judge Catilo issued an Order dated November 18, 2005 nullifying proceedings where prosecution witnesses had presented affidavits as their direct testimonies and denied admission of the prosecution’s exhibits as premature; the court set a new pre-trial conference. Zaldivar moved to declare the prosecution’s case terminated (January 16, 2006), which was denied by the RTC (March 10, 2006) and again on reconsideration (June 20, 2006).

Issues Presented to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court

The primary issues raised were (1) whether presenting only affidavits of prosecution witnesses amounted to failure to prove the charge, requiring dismissal; and (2) whether Judge Catilo committed grave abuse of discretion by nullifying prior proceedings and ordering a new pre-trial, effectively reopening the case and prejudicing the accused’s rights.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling

The Court of Appeals set aside the challenged RTC orders and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial. It held that (a) the contention regarding insufficiency of evidence due to presentation of affidavits was a matter for the trial court’s assessment and for adjudication at trial, not a ground for immediate dismissal; and (b) Judge Catilo grossly abused his discretion by nullifying the prior proceedings and ordering a new pre-trial, as this action effectively ordered a re-trial and prejudiced the rights of the parties. The CA observed that procedural lapses, if any, could have been remedied by recalling witnesses under Section 9, Rule 132.

Supreme Court’s Review — Standard and Deference to Trial Court

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. It reiterated that determining the presence or absence of elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and properly addressed after a full trial on the merits. The Court emphasized that absent a demurrer to evidence (per Rule 119, Section 23), an accused cannot compel termination of the case on the ground of alleged evidentiary insufficiency during trial. Accordingly, the propriety, sufficiency and admissibility of the prosecution’s evidence are matters to be ventilated and resolved in the trial itself.

Supreme Court’s Review — Nullification of Pre-trial Proceedings and Grave Abuse

The Supreme Court agreed with the CA that Judge Catilo committed grave abuse of discretion when he nullified the pre-trial proceedings and ordered a new pre-trial without adequate basis. The RTC had cited procedural defects in the presentation of witnesses and the omission of certain items in the pre-trial order as reasons for nullification. The Supreme Court found that the February 15, 2005 Pre-Trial Order complied with the mandatory pre-trial requirements under Section 1, Rule 118: issues were identified, evidence was marked, objections were raised, and trial dates were set. The Court held that, absent clear demonstration of how the pre-trial proceedings violated the rules, the trial court should not have set aside duly conducted proceedings.

Available Remedy for Perceived Procedural Lapses

The Supreme Court emphasized that the proper corrective measure for perceived procedural lapses during presentation of the prosecution’s case was to recall the prosecution’s witnesses and have them identify exhibits as allowed by Se

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 197056)

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Fe P. Zaldivar (Zaldivar) challenging (a) the Decision dated May 31, 2010 and (b) the Resolution dated December 15, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 02085, which had set aside Orders dated November 18, 2005 and June 20, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 23, in Criminal Case No. 03-57161. (Rollo, pp. 4-40; CA decision, pp. 31-38; CA resolution, pp. 39-40.)
Relief sought: nullification of the CA decision and resolution and an order terminating the prosecution or otherwise directing dismissal of the criminal case against petitioner for alleged failure of the prosecution to present competent and admissible evidence and alleged grave abuse in the trial court’s setting aside of prior proceedings.

Case Caption, Citation and Court Composition

Case citation: 782 Phil. 113, Third Division, G.R. No. 197056, March 02, 2016.
Parties: Fe P. Zaldivar, accompanied by her husband Eliezer Zaldivar, petitioner; People of the Philippines and Mamerto B. Dumasis, respondents.
Resolution authored by Justice Reyes; final Supreme Court disposition per entry dated March 2, 2016 and notice received March 22, 2016. (Rollo; Notice of Judgment.)

Facts

Complaint: Zaldivar and co-accused Jeanette Artajo were charged with Estafa in a complaint filed by Mamerto Dumasis (Dumasis) before the RTC; case initially raffled to Branch 33. (Rollo, p. 5.)
Pre-trial and arraignment: Pre-trial conference held and a Pre-Trial Order issued on February 15, 2005; Zaldivar and Artajo were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. (Rollo, p. 5.)
Prosecution presentation: During trial the prosecution presented witnesses Alma Dumasis and Delia Surmieda who identified their respective affidavits, which constituted their direct testimonies. Zaldivar’s counsel, Atty. Salvador Cabaluna, opted not to cross-examine those witnesses; Artajo’s counsel failed to appear and was deemed to have waived cross-examination despite notice. (Rollo, p. 32.)
Change of judge: Dumasis filed a Motion for Inhibition against Judge Virgilio Patag, which was granted; case was re-raffled to RTC Branch 23, presided by Judge Edgardo Catilo. (Rollo, p. 33.)

RTC Orders and Rationale (Branch 23, Judge Edgardo Catilo)

Order dated November 18, 2005: the RTC denied admission of the prosecution’s exhibits, nullified and set aside previous proceedings where prosecution witnesses’ affidavits were considered as direct testimonies for want of procedural due process, and set the case anew for pre-trial conference (scheduled January 19, 2006). The dispositive portion expressly:
- a) Proceedings wherein prosecution witnesses’ affidavits were considered as direct testimonies were nullified and set aside for want of procedural due process;
- b) Prosecution’s formal offer of exhibits set aside as premature; and
- c) Case set for pre-trial conference anew to consider matters not covered by the pre-trial conference of February 15, 2005. (Rollo, pp. 14-15; Order, Nov. 18, 2005.)
Subsequent motions: Zaldivar filed a Motion to Declare Prosecution’s Case Terminated on January 16, 2006, which the RTC denied in its Order dated March 10, 2006; Zaldivar’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied June 20, 2006. (Rollo, pp. 33-34.)

Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA) — Issues Presented

Petitioner’s issues framed in the Rule 65 petition before the CA:
- (1) Whether, by presenting only the affidavits of its witnesses, the prosecution failed to prove the commission of the crime charged such that the criminal case should have been dismissed; and
- (2) Whether Judge Catilo committed grave abuse of discretion in nullifying prior proceedings and ordering a new pre-trial. (Rollo, p. 34.)

CA Decision and Reasoning (May 31, 2010)

Disposition: The CA found “strong and compelling reasons” to review the trial court’s orders and SET ASIDE the RTC Orders dated November 18, 2005 and June 20, 2006; directed the trial court to proceed with trial. Dispositive text reproduced: “WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the assailed twin Orders rendered by the [RTC], Branch 23, Iloilo City in Criminal Case No. 03-57161 dated November 18, 2005 and June 20, 2006 respectively, are hereby SET ASIDE and the trial court is hereby DIRECTED to proceed with the trial of the case. SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, p. 35.)
On admissibility and proof: The CA dismissed Zaldivar’s contention that the prosecution failed to prove the crime by merely presenting affidavits in lieu of testimony, holding that such a determination is for the sound judgment of the trial court and that the prosecution may present its evidence in a manner it deems fit “over which neither Zaldivar nor the trial judge has no control.” (Rollo, p. 38.)
On nullification and new pre-trial: The CA held that Judge Catilo grossly abused his discretion in nullifying the pre-trial proceedings taken before Branch 33 and ordering a new pre-trial, finding such action tantamount to ordering a new trial or re-opening the case to the prejudice of the acc