Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 165496
Since both Orders of the MeTC were adverse to him even with
respect to the civil aspect of the case, petitioner was mandated to
submit them in the required form.23
In fine, petitioner fell short in his compliance with Section 2 (d) of Rule
42, the mandatory tenor of which is discernible thereunder and is well
settled.24 He has not, however, advanced any strong compelling
reasons to warrant a relaxation of the Rules, hence, his petition
before the CA was correctly dismissed.
Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of
cases. Courts and litigants alike are thus enjoined to abide strictly by
the rules. And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation
in the application of the rules, this we stress, was never intended to
forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity.
The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies
only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances.
While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is
equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with
the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy
administration of justice.25 (Emphasis supplied)
As to the third reason for the appellate courts dismissal of his petition
failure to implead the People of the Philippines as a party in the
petition indeed, as petitioner contends, the same is of no moment,
he having appealed only the civil aspect of the case. Passing on the
dual purpose of a criminal action, this Court ruled:
Unless the offended party waives the civil action or reserves the right
to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the
criminal action, there are two actions involved in a criminal case. The
first is the criminal action for the punishment of the offender. The
parties are the People of the Philippines as the plaintiff and the
accused. In a criminal action, the private complainant is merely a
witness for the State on the criminal aspect of the action. The second
is the civil action arising from the delict. The private complainant is
the plaintiff and the accused is the defendant. There is a merger of
the trial of the two cases to avoid multiplicity of suits.26 (Underscoring
supplied)
factual, a remand of the case would afford the fullest opportunity for
the parties to ventilate, and for the trial court to resolve the same.
Petitioner finally posits that respondent waived his right to present
evidence on the civil aspect of the case (1) when the grant of the
demurrer was reversed on appeal, citing Section 1 of Rule 33,38 and
(2) when respondent orally opposed petitioners motion for
reconsideration pleading that proceedings with respect to the civil
aspect of the case continue.
Petitioners position is tenuous.
Petitioners citation of Section 1 of Rule 33 is incorrect. Where a
court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of
the accused, and the crime was committed within its territorial
jurisdiction, the court necessarily exercises jurisdiction over all issues
that the law requires it to resolve.
1awphi1.net
One of the issues in a criminal case being the civil liability of the
accused arising from the crime, the governing law is the Rules of
Criminal Procedure, not the Rules of Civil Procedure which pertains
to a civil action arising from the initiatory pleading that gives rise to
the suit.39
As for petitioners attribution of waiver to respondent, it cannot be
determined with certainty from the records the nature of the alleged
oral objections of respondent to petitioners motion for
reconsideration of the grant of the demurrer to evidence. Any waiver
of the right to present evidence must be positively demonstrated. Any
ambiguity in the voluntariness of the waiver is frowned upon,40 hence,
courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against it.41
This Court therefore upholds respondents right to present evidence
as reserved by his filing of leave of court to file the demurrer.
WHEREFORE, the petition is, in light of the foregoing discussions,
DENIED.
The case is REMANDED to the court of origin, Metropolitan Trial
Court of Makati City, Branch 65 which is DIRECTED to forthwith set
Criminal Case No. 294690 for further proceedings only for the
The appeal of the offended party from the civil aspect shall not affect
the criminal aspect of the judgment or order appealed from.43
DANTE O. TIN
Asscociate Ju
Footnotes
1
Rollo, p. 86.
Records, pp. 234-244, citing Ting v. Court of Appeals, 398 Phil. 481
(2000).
5
Rollo, p. 245.
Id. at 87.
Id. at 143-146.
10
Id. at 162-163.
11
12
13
Rollo, p. 64.
14
15
16
Rollo, p. 53.
17
18
Id. at 623.
21
22
23
Cf. Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 157 (1997), which ruled
that a petitioner is not required to attach to the petition before the
Court of Appeals a certified true copy but only a true or plain copy
of the MeTC Decision since petitioner is not appealing therefrom as it
was rendered in her favor.
24
25
26
27
From the MeTCs order, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati
instituted a special civil action for certiorari with the Regional Trial
Court of Makati City, Branch 147. Docketed as SCA No. 03-712
entitled "People of the Philippines v. Hon Rommel O. Baybay and
Eung Won Choi," the petition was dismissed on October 28, 2003 for
being improper and for lack of merit, which order eventually attained
finality (vide records, pp. 335-341, 564-565, 676).
28
29
32
Sanchez v. Far East Bank & Trust Co., G.R. No. 155309,
November 15, 2005, 475 SCRA 97.
33
34
35
36
Id. at 517.
37
38
40
41
42