Fenequito vs. Vergara, Jr.

An order of the RTC that reverses the MeTC's dismissal of a criminal case for lack of probable cause and directs the lower court to proceed to trial is interlocutory, not final, and therefore cannot be challenged by a petition for review under Rule 42; strict compliance with the Rules of Court is required of appellants, and failure to submit the documents required under Section 2, Rule 42 is a sufficient ground for dismissal.

Respondent Bernardo Vergara, Jr. filed a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents against petitioners Rosa H. Fenequito, Corazon E. Hernandez, and Lauro Rodriguez before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. The complaint centered on a questioned Deed of Sale, the signatures on which were examined by the PNP Crime Laboratory. The legal framework governing the appeal of criminal cases from the MeTC to the RTC, and from the RTC to the Court of Appeals, is set out in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which distinguish between final and interlocutory orders for purposes of appealability.

On February 11, 2004, an Information for falsification of public documents was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila by the Assistant City Prosecutor against Rosa H. Fenequito, Corazon E. Hernandez, and Lauro Rodriguez. The charge originated from a complaint lodged by Bernardo Vergara, Jr., who submitted as evidence a PNP Crime Laboratory Questioned Document Report No. 048-03. The report stated that the signatures appearing in the questioned Deed of Sale, when compared to standard signatures, "reveal divergences in the manner of execution and stroke structure [which is] an indication that they WERE NOT WRITTEN BY ONE AND THE SAME PERSON." The report qualified this finding, however, by noting that "no definite conclusion can be rendered due to the fact that questioned signatures are photocopies wherein minute details are not clearly manifested."

On April 23, 2004, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the Case Based on Absence of Probable Cause. After respondent filed his Comment/Opposition, the MeTC issued an Order on July 9, 2004 dismissing the case for lack of probable cause. Respondent, with the express conformity of the public prosecutor, appealed to the RTC of Manila. On July 21, 2005, the RTC rendered judgment setting aside the MeTC Order and directing the MeTC to proceed to trial. The RTC found that the offense charged was committed and that petitioners were probably guilty thereof, relying on the document examiner's finding that the questioned signatures were not written by one and the same person.

Petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review. The CA dismissed the petition on March 9, 2006, ruling that the RTC decision is interlocutory in nature and not appealable. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied on May 22, 2006. Petitioners then filed the instant petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. Notably, petitioners had failed to submit copies of pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent to the petition as required under Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, and did not rectify this omission even in their Motion for Reconsideration before the CA.

• Appealability of the RTC Decision: Petitioner contended that the RTC Decision is final as it disposes with finality the issue of whether the MeTC erred in granting their Motion to Dismiss, and therefore the CA erred in dismissing their petition for review on the ground that the remedy was improper.
• Relaxation of the Rules in the Interest of Justice: Petitioner argued that assuming the remedy availed of was improper, just and compelling reasons exist to warrant relaxation of the rules in the interest of substantial justice, citing the PNP Crime Laboratory Questioned Document Report which allegedly showed findings that are not conclusive and insufficient to support a finding of probable cause.
• Authority to Appeal: Petitioner argued that it is the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), not the public prosecutor, which has authority to file an appeal with the RTC.

• Finality of the RTC Decision: Whether the RTC decision setting aside the MeTC's dismissal and directing the case to proceed to trial is a final and appealable order or an interlocutory order.
• Compliance with Rule 42 Requirements: Whether petitioners' failure to submit the documents required under Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court constitutes a sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition.
• Probable Cause: Whether the PNP Crime Laboratory Questioned Document Report, despite its qualified conclusion, establishes probable cause to indict petitioners for falsification of public documents.
• Authority of the Public Prosecutor to Appeal: Whether the Assistant City Prosecutor had the authority to file the appeal with the RTC, or whether such authority belongs exclusively to the OSG.

• Finality of the RTC Decision: No. The RTC decision is interlocutory in nature because it did not dispose of the case completely but left something more to be done on its merits—namely, the continuation of criminal proceedings until the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined.
• Compliance with Rule 42 Requirements: No. Petitioners' failure to comply with the documentary requirements under Section 2, Rule 42, and their failure to rectify the omission even upon motion for reconsideration, is a sufficient ground for dismissal pursuant to Section 3, Rule 42.
• Probable Cause: Yes. The document examiner's finding that the questioned signatures were not written by one and the same person, even if qualified by the limitation that the signatures were photocopies, already creates probable cause to indict petitioners.
• Authority of the Public Prosecutor to Appeal: Yes. Under P.D. No. 1275, the city prosecutor has charge of the prosecution of all crimes in the courts of the city, including the RTC; the appeal was properly filed with the express conformity of the public prosecutor.

• Finality of the RTC Decision: A final order disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates a particular proceeding, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined. An interlocutory order, by contrast, does not dispose of a case completely but leaves something more to be done upon its merits. The RTC decision in this case set aside the MeTC order and directed the court a quo to proceed to trial, allowing the prosecution to present its evidence. This left the MeTC still to arraign the petitioners, conduct trial, and render judgment. The decision was therefore essentially a denial of petitioners' motion to dismiss, which is interlocutory. The Court relied on Basa vs. People, which involved essentially identical facts, and held that an order denying a motion to quash on the ground that the allegations in the information do not constitute an offense cannot be challenged by appeal, as allowing appeals from interlocutory orders would result in multiplicity of appeals and unduly burden the courts.

• Compliance with Rule 42 Requirements: The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and must be exercised strictly in accordance with the Rules of Court. Section 2, Rule 42 requires the petition to be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts and of the pleadings and other material portions of the record. Section 3, Rule 42 provides that failure to comply with these requirements is sufficient ground for dismissal. Petitioners had every opportunity to comply, including in their Motion for Reconsideration, yet remained obstinate in their non-observance. Such obstinacy is incongruous with their plea for liberality in construing the Rules.

• Probable Cause: Probable cause for filing a criminal information is defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. It does not require absolute certainty or an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction; it need only rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed by the suspects. Although the PNP Crime Laboratory report qualified its finding because the questioned signatures were photocopies, the fact that an expert witness found that the questioned signatures were not written by one and the same person already creates probable cause. The Court agreed with the prosecutor's resolution dated September 22, 2003 on this point and found no justification to depart from the RTC's ruling.

• Authority of the Public Prosecutor to Appeal: Section 35(l), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) mandates the OSG to represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings. However, Section 11 of P.D. No. 1275 provides that the city fiscal (now prosecutor) shall have charge of the prosecution of all crimes in the courts of such city and shall discharge all duties incident to the institution of criminal prosecutions. The Court has held that the fiscal represents the People of the Philippines in the prosecution of offenses before the trial courts, including the MeTC, MTC, MCTC, and RTC. Since the appeal was filed with the RTC of Manila, the Assistant City Prosecutor had authority to file it. Petitioners' reliance on P.D. No. 911 was misplaced, as that law concerns the prior authority or approval needed when an assistant fiscal or state prosecutor files an information or dismisses a case—not when filing an appeal.

• Final vs. Interlocutory Orders — A final order is one that disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined. An interlocutory order is one that does not dispose of a case completely but leaves something more to be done upon its merits. An RTC decision reversing an MeTC dismissal and directing the case to proceed to trial is interlocutory because it leaves the lower court to arraign the accused, conduct trial, and render judgment.

• Right to Appeal as a Statutory Privilege — The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; it is a statutory privilege that may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Strict compliance with the Rules of Court is required, and deviations cannot be tolerated.

• Probable Cause for Filing a Criminal Information — Probable cause is such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. It does not mean actual and positive cause, nor does it import absolute certainty. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt or evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. The determination rests on common sense and reasonable belief, not on the technical calibrations of the rules of evidence.

• Authority of the Public Prosecutor to Appeal to the RTC — Under P.D. No. 1275, the city prosecutor has charge of the prosecution of all crimes in the courts of the city, including the RTC. The fiscal represents the People of the Philippines in the prosecution of offenses before the trial courts. The OSG's mandate under the Administrative Code of 1987 to represent the Government in criminal proceedings extends only to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, not to the RTC.

• "A final order is one that which disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined. Upon the other hand, an order is interlocutory if it does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more to be done upon its merits." — This passage defines the controlling distinction between final and interlocutory orders, which determines whether an order is appealable; it is the canonical formulation applied throughout the decision.

• "Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. The term does not mean 'actual and positive cause' nor does it import absolute certainty." — This passage articulates the standard for probable cause at the prosecutorial level, distinguishing it from the quantum of proof required for conviction, and is frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on preliminary investigation.

• "It is axiomatic that an order denying a motion to quash on the ground that the allegations in the Informations do not constitute an offense cannot be challenged by an appeal. This Court generally frowns upon this remedial measure as regards interlocutory orders." — This passage states the rule against appealing interlocutory orders, grounded in the policy of avoiding multiplicity of appeals in a single action.

• Basa vs. People, G.R. No. 152444, February 16, 2005, 451 SCRA 510 — Controlling precedent on substantially identical facts. The Court affirmed the CA's dismissal of a petition for review from an RTC decision that reversed an MeTC order quashing informations, holding that the RTC decision was interlocutory and not appealable. The present case was found to be "on all fours" with Basa.

• Reyes vs. Pearlbank Securities, Inc., G.R. No. 171435, July 30, 2008, 560 SCRA 518 — Cited for the definition of probable cause for filing a criminal information. The formulation was adopted and applied to uphold the finding of probable cause against petitioners.

• People of the Philippines vs. Duca, G.R. No. 171175, October 9, 2009, 603 SCRA 159 — Cited for the proposition that the fiscal represents the People of the Philippines in the prosecution of offenses before the trial courts, including the RTC, supporting the authority of the Assistant City Prosecutor to file the appeal.

• Mendoza vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 165575, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 333 — Cited for the doctrine that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege requiring strict compliance with the Rules of Court.

• Section 2, Rule 42, Rules of Court — Requires a petition for review to be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court, and of the pleadings and other material portions of the record. Petitioners' failure to comply was an independent ground for dismissal.

• Section 3, Rule 42, Rules of Court — Provides that failure of the petitioner to comply with the requirements regarding payment of docket fees, deposit for costs, proof of service, and contents and documents accompanying the petition shall be sufficient ground for dismissal. Applied to dismiss the petition for non-compliance with Section 2.

• Section 1, Rule 42, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended — Provides that a party desiring to appeal from a decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a petition for review with the CA. The Court held this provision contemplates appeal from a final decision or order, not an interlocutory one.

• Section 3(b), Rule 122, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review under Rule 42. Held inapplicable because the RTC decision was interlocutory.

• Section 11, Presidential Decree No. 1275 — Provides that the city fiscal (now prosecutor) shall have charge of the prosecution of all crimes in the courts of such city and shall discharge all duties incident to the institution of criminal prosecutions. Applied to uphold the authority of the Assistant City Prosecutor to file the appeal with the RTC.

• Section 35(l), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV, Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Mandates the OSG to represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings. Distinguished from P.D. No. 1275 to show that the OSG's authority does not extend to appeals before the RTC.

Velasco, Jr., P.J. (Chairperson), Abad, J., Mendoza, J., and Perlas-Bernabe, J. concurred.