ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. Nos. 113273-78. June 5, 2006]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. SALVADOR D. SILERIO, et al.
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for pour information, is a resolution of the
First Division of this Court dated
G.R. Nos. 113273-78 (People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Salvador D. Silerio, et al.)
This refers to a Motion dated August 16, 2004 entitled a "MOTION TO REQUIRE THE HONORABLE RTC BRANCH EIGHT JUDGE CESAR BORDEOS OF LEGASPI CITY, TO COMPLY WITH THIS HONORABLE TRIBUNAL'S DECISION DATED OCTOBER 17, 1994 (G.R. L-113273-78) IN RELATION TO THIS HONORABLE TRIBUNAL'S DECISION DATED MARCH 18, 2002 (G.R. No. 124171)" [1] cralaw filed by four (4) of the six (6) accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 6307 to 6312 before the Regional Trial Court, 5th Judicial Region, Legaspi City, who were charged with rape with homicide of Maria Teresa Merciales y Ricafort committed on April 13, 1986 in Camalig, Albay.
The aforesaid Motion was filed on September 22, 2004, long after our Resolution dated October 17, 1994 in the above-entitled case became final and executory. In said Resolution, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in refusing to admit Joselito Nuada as a state witness. The background facts are stated in the resolution which is hereby quoted as follows:
On April 13, 1993, (sic) a young lady, later identified as Maria Teresa Merciales y Ricafort, was found dead at the Camalig North Central Elementary School Campus in Camalig, Albay. She had been raped and strangled to death.
The records show that the National Bureau of Investigation Regional Office investigated Joselito Nuada, whose initial extra-judicial confession admitting his presence and participation in the rape (naming Edwin Moral, Adonis Nieves, Ernesto Lobete, Domil Grageda and Ramon "Pol" Flores as having each raped "Maritess," after which Pol Flores strangled her to death), acquired the nature of a judicial confession when it was presented as one of the supporting affidavits in the filing of the initial criminal complaint before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Legaspi City. One Rudy Hernandez made another statement positively pointing to a group that included Nuada as being responsible for the crime and seen by Hernandez running away from the scene of the crime immediately after its commission.
In Criminal Cases Nos. 6307-6312, Nuada, Moral, Nieves, Lobete, Grageda and Flores were charged with the crime of rape with homicide. Upon arraignment, all pleaded not guilty.
On November 8, 1993, the prosecution filed a motion to discharge Nuada from the information to utilize him as a state witness pursuant to R.A. 6981, followed by a supplemental motion stating that Nuada had been admitted as a state witness on November 4, 1993 under such act and therefore, his discharge from the information was mandatory.
On December 2, 1993, the trial court denied the prosecution's motion for Nuada's discharge. The prosecution then filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of denial which was, likewise, denied. Hence, this recourse.
Considering that the court, in its sound judicial discretion, did not find it equitable and proper to utilize Nuada as a state witness and ruled against his discharge from information pursuant to the Rules on Criminal Procedure, we resolve to DENY the petition and hereby direct respondent judge to proceed with the trial of the case with utmost dispatch. [2] cralaw
The motion for reconsideration filed by the People was denied with finality by the Court on November 21, 1994. [3] cralaw A Second Motion for Reconsideration with leave of court [4] cralaw and a Supplemental Petition were filed. [5] cralaw The Court noted without action the said pleadings in an extended Resolution [6] cralaw dated March 6, 1995 considering that entry of judgement was made in due course on December 12, 1994. [7] cralaw
In the meantime, without awaiting the finality of the October 17, 1994 Resolution, the trial court proceeded with the criminal case. Notably, the prosecution rested its case without presenting the agent from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to prove the due execution of Nuada's extrajudicial confession. Thus, on October 21, 1994, an Order was issued by the trial court dismissing the charges of rape with homicide based on a demurrer to evidence filed by the accused, to wit:
For lack of sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, all the accused in all these cases are hereby ACQUITTED and the cases filed against them are hereby DISMISSED. The accused in all these cases, being detention prisoners, are hereby ordered RELEASED from detention, unless they are being detained for some other legal cause. [8] cralaw
Leticia Merciales, the mother of the victim, consequently, sought to annul the foregoing Order of the trial court. In a petition filed with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 124171, [9] cralaw the Court en banc granted the petition on March 18, 2002, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37341 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order dismissing Criminal Cases Nos. 6307-6312 is ANNULLED, and this case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City, Branch 8, for further proceedings. The public prosecutor is ORDERED to complete the presentation of all available witnesses for the prosecution. [10] cralaw
Acting accordingly, the trial court proceeded with the criminal case, and on September 20, 2002, the court issued an Order [11] cralaw granting the Motion to Discharge Joselito Nuada in order to utilize him as state witness and set the case for hearing. The trial court further ruled that the accused's applications for bail are held in abeyance until the motion to discharge shall have been resolved. A motion for reconsideration was consequently filed by the accused harping that the denial by Judge Salvador Silerio of the motion to discharge Nuada is the "law of the case." The trial court denied the motion in the Order [12] cralaw dated November 13, 2002.
In an Order [13] cralaw dated August 4, 2004, the trial court resolved all pending incidents in the case and ruled that the September 20 and the November 13, 2002 Orders still stand. It scheduled the case for hearing on August 16, 2004.
On September 22, 2004, the four accused: Ernesto Lobete, Edwin Moral, Domil Grageda and Ramon Flores filed the instant Motion dated August 16, 2004. The accused alleged that the trial judge started to receive evidence again on Nuada's application for discharge when this has been denied by the trial court, and affirmed by the Court. By hearing anew the prosecution's failed application for Nuada's discharge, Judge Bordeos attempts to set aside the final and executory order of denial of his predecessor (Judge Salvador Silerio) and the Resolution/Decision of this Court in G.R. Nos. 113273-78 and G.R. No. 124171. The accused prayed that "the Court order the Honorable Cesar Bordeos, as Presiding Judge of Branch 8, Regional Trial Court, Legaspi City, to abide by the decision of this Honorable Tribunal in G.R. L-113273-78 denying the prosecution's application for the discharge of Joselito Nuada; to receive additional evidence from the prosecution other than the testimony of Joselito Nuada (as directed in G.R. No. 124171); and to hear the case of the prosecution in the context of the pending bail applications filed by the undersigned." [14] cralaw
Acting on the motion, the Court required the respondents including respondent Judge to comment on the motion. [15] cralaw
In the Comments [16] cralaw filed, the respondents explained that the trial court was in faithful compliance with the spirit and essence of the ruling in Silerio (G.R. Nos. 113273-78), taken together with the ruling in the subsequent Merciales case (G.R. No. 124171). [17] cralaw In the extended Resolution [18] cralaw dated March 6, 1995, the Court stated that the trial court correctly denied the motion to discharge Nuada, only because the prosecution refused to present evidence at the hearing on said motion. This, "in effect, brings the proceedings back to the point when the prosecution declined to present the NBI agent to prove the due execution of the extrajudicial confession of the accused, Joselito Nuada, in order that he may be discharged [and utilized] as a state witness." [19] cralaw Thus, the trial court took off from this point and issued court orders (dated September 20, 2002, and November 13, 2002) setting the case for hearing to receive the evidence for the prosecution. The trial court did not act counter to the Court's Resolution dated October 17, 1994. The instant motion filed by the respondents is meant to delay the proceedings of the case, and was not proper as the respondents should have assailed the Orders of the trial court to a higher court which they failed to do.
A Reply thereto with Notice of Appearance and Clarificatory Manifestation [20] cralaw was filed by the accused.
The respondents' Comments are well-taken.
There is nothing ambiguous or conflicting with the directives of the Court in the Resolution in G.R. Nos. 113273-78 and the Decision of the Court in G.R. No. 124171. The trial judge was ordered to proceed with the criminal case with dispatch (G.R. Nos. 113273-78) and to consider the testimonies of all available witnesses (G.R. No. 124171). As to who are these "available witnesses," the trial court in the November 13, 2002 Order explained that:
x x x [A]fter seven (7) witnesses have been presented by the prosecution, the next and supposedly last witness to be presented was the accused, Joselito Nuada. But before Joselito Nuada can be allowed to testify for the prosecution, his discharge must first be granted by the Court in order for him to be able to testify as a state witness. x x x
x x x x
If this Court were to maintain the defense's contention that the Resolution of the Court in G.R. Nos. 113273-78 is already the "law of the case," this would deprive the prosecution the chance "to complete the presentation of all available witnesses for the prosecution," i.e., the NBI agent and Joselito Nuada, provided the latter qualifies as a state witness. [21] cralaw
Accordingly, the trial court proceeded with the hearings of the case from where it left off. There is no showing that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion or that it acted in excess of its jurisdiction in setting the case for hearing for the public prosecutor to complete the presentation of all available witnesses for the prosecution, which included Joselito Nuada, if necessary. Clearly, the motion filed is an attempt to assail the September 20, 2002 and November 13, 2002 Orders of the trial court, which have attained finality. It is, therefore, too late in the day, and not proper, to challenge the same by way of the instant motion.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion dated August 16, 2004 is DENIED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo , p. 216.
[2] cralaw Id. at 151-152.
[3] cralaw Id. at 174.
[4] cralaw Id. at 175, 178.
[5] cralaw Id. at 182.
[6] cralaw Id. at 207.
[7] cralaw Id. at 210.
[8] cralaw Merciales v. Court of Appeals, 429 Phil. 70, 76 (2002).
[9] cralaw Leticia R. Merciales, petitioner v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, the People of the Philippines, Joselito Nuada, Pat. Edwin Moral, Adonis Nieves, Ernesto Lobete, Domil Grageda and Ramon "Pol" Flores, respondents, supra.
[10] cralaw Supra note 8, at 82. (Emphasis ours)
[11] cralaw Rollo , pp. 238-239.
[12] cralaw Id. at 240-243.
[13] cralaw Id. at 251-252.
[14] cralaw Id at 219.
[15] cralaw Resolution dated 17 January 2005, id. at 259.
[16] cralaw Comment/opposition dated September 27, 2004 filed by the private prosecutors and Comment of Judge Cezar A. Bordeos dated August 30, 2005; id. at 221 and 267, respectively.
[17] cralaw Id. at 224.
[18] cralaw Id. at 207-208.
[19] cralaw Id. at 238.
[20] cralaw Id. at 284.
[21] cralaw Id. at 274-275.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
