Zaldivar vs. People of the Philippines and Dumasis

A trial court commits grave abuse of discretion when it nullifies pre-trial proceedings and orders a new pre-trial without legal basis, notwithstanding that the initial pre-trial order substantially complied with Section 1, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure; the proper remedy for perceived procedural lapses in the presentation of evidence is to recall witnesses pursuant to Section 9, Rule 132, not to invalidate prior proceedings.

Fe P. Zaldivar and co-accused Jeanette Artajo were charged with Estafa before the RTC of Iloilo City based on a complaint filed by Mamerto B. Dumasis. The case was initially raffled to Branch 33, where a pre-trial conference was conducted on February 15, 2005, resulting in a Pre-Trial Order. Both accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. During trial, the prosecution presented witnesses Alma Dumasis and Delia Surmieda, who identified their respective affidavits as their direct testimonies. Zaldivar's counsel opted not to cross-examine, while Artajo's counsel, despite notice, was absent and deemed to have waived the right to cross-examine. Dumasis subsequently filed a Motion for Inhibition against the presiding judge without the consent or acquiescence of the public prosecutor, which was granted, resulting in the re-raffling of the case to Branch 23, presided by Judge Edgardo L. Catilo.

• Nature of the Charge: Zaldivar and Jeanette Artajo were charged with Estafa under a complaint filed by Mamerto Dumasis before the RTC of Iloilo City.

• Initial Pre-Trial and Arraignment: The case was initially raffled to Branch 33. A pre-trial conference was held on February 15, 2005, and a Pre-Trial Order was issued on the same date. Both accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.

• Presentation of Evidence: During trial, the prosecution presented Alma Dumasis and Delia Surmieda as witnesses. Both witnesses merely identified their respective affidavits, which were considered as their direct testimonies. Zaldivar's counsel, Atty. Salvador Cabaluna, opted not to cross-examine the witnesses. Artajo's counsel was absent despite notice and was deemed to have waived the right to cross-examine.

• Change of Venue: Dumasis filed a Motion for Inhibition against Judge Virgilio Patag without the consent or acquiescence of the public prosecutor. The motion was granted, and the case was re-raffled to Branch 23, presided by Judge Edgardo Catilo.

• Nullification Order: On November 18, 2005, Judge Catilo issued an Order nullifying the proceedings conducted before Branch 33, denying the admission of the prosecution's exhibits as premature, and setting the case anew for pre-trial conference on January 19, 2006. The order cited "want of procedural due process" and claimed the February 15, 2005 Pre-Trial Order did not contain matters required under Section 1, Rule 118.

• Motions to Terminate: Zaldivar filed a Motion to Declare Prosecution's Case Terminated on January 16, 2006, arguing that the denial of the admission of exhibits effectively terminated the prosecution's case for failure to adduce competent evidence. The RTC denied this motion on March 10, 2006, and denied the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration on June 20, 2006.

• Court of Appeals Proceedings: Zaldivar filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The CA found that Judge Catilo grossly abused his discretion in nullifying the pre-trial proceedings and ordering a new pre-trial, noting that the February 15, 2005 Pre-Trial Order substantially complied with the rules. The CA ruled that the proper remedy was to recall witnesses under Section 9, Rule 132, not to nullify the proceedings.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner maintained that the prosecution failed to prove the commission of the crime charged by merely presenting the affidavits of its witnesses in lieu of direct testimonies, which should have resulted in the dismissal of the criminal case.

• Premature Termination: Petitioner argued that the denial of the admission of the prosecution's exhibits upon timely and sustained objections had the effect of terminating the prosecution's case for failure to adduce competent and admissible evidence during the trial proper.

• Double Jeopardy: Petitioner contended that the RTC's Order dated November 18, 2005, directing the conduct of another pre-trial or re-opening of the case, violated her right not to be prosecuted and tried twice on the same information.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner asserted that Judge Catilo committed grave abuse of discretion in nullifying the proceedings and setting the case anew for pre-trial, as the initial pre-trial proceedings were valid and binding.

• Evidentiary Matter: Respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, countered that the presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon only after a full-blown trial on the merits.

• Proper Remedy: Respondent argued that unless petitioner files a demurrer to the evidence, she cannot compel the trial court to terminate the case on the ground of alleged insufficiency of evidence. The validity and merits of the prosecution's accusations, as well as the admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper.

• Availability of Recall: Respondent maintained that instead of nullifying the pre-trial proceedings, Judge Catilo could have recalled the prosecution's witnesses as provided in Section 9, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

• Compliance with Pre-Trial Requirements: Respondent argued that the Pre-Trial Order dated February 15, 2005, showed due compliance with Section 1, Rule 118, and there was no basis for nullification.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution failed to prove the commission of the crime charged by presenting only the affidavits of its witnesses, warranting dismissal of the case.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in nullifying the previous proceedings and setting the case anew for pre-trial conference.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The contention that the prosecution failed to establish the crime charged by competent and admissible evidence is best left to the sound judgment of the trial court. Challenges to the sufficiency of evidence must be raised through a demurrer to evidence under Rule 119, Section 23 of the Rules of Court; absent such demurrer, the accused cannot compel termination of the case on the ground of alleged failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The trial court grossly abused its discretion in nullifying the pre-trial proceedings and ordering a new pre-trial conference. The February 15, 2005 Pre-Trial Order substantially complied with Section 1, Rule 118, covering plea bargaining, stipulation of facts, marking of evidence, waiver of objections, and trial dates. Pre-trial is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit issues and expedite trial; nullification subverted this purpose. The proper remedy for perceived procedural lapses was to recall witnesses under Section 9, Rule 132, not to invalidate prior proceedings.

• Demurrer to Evidence — An objection by the accused to the effect that the evidence produced by the prosecution is insufficient in point of law to sustain a verdict or make out a case. Under Rule 119, Section 23 of the Rules of Court, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence only (1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard, or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that Zaldivar could not challenge the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence without filing a demurrer.

• Recall of Witnesses — Under Section 9, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, after the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of court, which the court will grant or withhold in its discretion as the interest of justice may require. The Court ruled that Judge Catilo should have utilized this provision to remedy any procedural defects in the presentation of evidence, rather than nullifying the entire proceedings.

• Purpose of Pre-Trial — Pre-trial is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit the basic issues between the parties and to take the trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering. Its chief objective is to simplify, abbreviate, and expedite or dispense with the trial. The Court applied this principle to find that nullifying the pre-trial proceedings violated this purpose where the initial pre-trial order substantially complied with the rules.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — The capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or the exercise of power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. The Court found that Judge Catilo's nullification of proceedings without legal basis constituted grave abuse of discretion.

• "The presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits." — Articulating the principle that sufficiency of evidence is a matter for trial, not collateral attack.

• "Unless [petitioner] files a demurrer to the evidence presented by the prosecution, she cannot enjoin the trial court to terminate the case on the ground of the prosecution's alleged failure to establish and prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt." — Establishing the procedural requirement for challenging prosecution evidence.

• "Pre-trial is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit the basic issues between the parties and to take the trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering. Its chief objective is to simplify, abbreviate and expedite or dispense with the trial." — Defining the fundamental purpose of pre-trial conferences in criminal cases.

• "Absent any palpable explanation as to why and how said proceedings were conducted in violation of the rules and thus should be set aside, the Court sustains the CA's finding that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in nullifying the previous proceedings and setting the case anew for pre-trial." — Explaining the standard for finding grave abuse of discretion in procedural nullification.

• Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (3rd Division), G.R. Nos. 195011-19, September 30, 2013, 706 SCRA 451 — Cited for the principle that the presence or absence of elements of the crime is evidentiary in nature and must be passed upon after full-blown trial.

• Andres v. Justice Secretary Cuevas, 499 Phil. 36 (2005) — Cited in conjunction with Singian, Jr. regarding the evidentiary nature of sufficiency of proof.

• Valencia v. Sandiganbayan, 510 Phil. 70 (2005) — Cited for the rule that the trial court may grant parties the opportunity to adduce additional evidence and that strict observance of trial procedure depends on circumstances at the discretion of the trial judge.

• LCK Industries, Inc. v. Planters Development Bank, 563 Phil. 957 (2007) — Cited for the definition and purpose of pre-trial as a procedural device to clarify and limit issues.

• People v. Go, G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014, 732 SCRA 216 — Cited for the definition of demurrer to evidence as an objection that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a verdict.

• Section 1, Rule 118, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Governs mandatory pre-trial in criminal cases, requiring courts to consider plea bargaining, stipulation of facts, marking of evidence, waiver of objections, modification of trial order, and matters promoting fair and expeditious trial. The Court found that the February 15, 2005 Pre-Trial Order substantially complied with these requirements.

• Section 9, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Provides that witnesses cannot be recalled after examination by both sides without leave of court, which may be granted as the interest of justice requires. The Court held that this provision should have been utilized by the trial court instead of nullifying proceedings.

• Section 23, Rule 119, Rules of Court — Governs demurrer to evidence, allowing the court to dismiss the action for insufficiency of evidence upon motion of the accused or on its own initiative. The Court emphasized that this is the proper vehicle for challenging sufficiency of evidence, not a motion to terminate or petition for certiorari.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Perez, and Jardeleza, JJ.