REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES$>unbi uunbupun

Quezon City

FOURTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES SB-14-SCA-OOOlrepresented by the OFFICE OF THE (Crim. Case No. 7265)OMBUDSMAN, MARCIALSABANA, and EDITHABRANDARES,

Petitioners,

- versus -Present:

Quiroz, J., Chairperson.Cruz, J.Jacinto, J.HON. HECTOR B. SALISE, in his

capacity as Acting Presiding Judge ofBranch 6, Regional Trial Court, lothJudicial Region, Prosperidad, Agusandel Sur, and JAIME T. BERN AT,SR.,

Promulgated:

Respondents. NOli fAV\\?e.,-- 3 I 2..011 £Vllf

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

JACINTO, J:

This a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,assailing the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 6) ofProsperidad, Agusan del Sur dated 4 June 2013, I dismissing the case againstprivate respondent Jaime T. Bernat, Sr., and the Order: dated 6 December2013, denying the Motion for Reconsideration' in Criminal Case No. 7265entitled "People of the Philippines, Plaintiff versus Jaime T Bernat, Sr. andAileen D. Bastillada, Accused."

The antecedent facts are as follows:

Private respondent Jaime T. Bernat, Sr. (Bernat) and Aileen D.Bastillada (Bastillada) were charged with Falsification of Public Documentsas defined in Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code before the Regional

I Records, pp. 38-45.2 Id., p. 46.3 ld., pp. 116-120.

DECISION

People of the Philippines v. Hon. Hector SaliseSB-14-SCA -0001Page 2 of 10x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

Trial Court (RTC) of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur by the Office of theDeputy Ombudsman for Mindanao (OMB-Mindanao).4

The case was raffled to RTC Branch 6, then presided by Judge DanteLuz N. Viacrusis. Thereafter, private respondent Bemat was arraigned andtrial commenced only as against him, while accused Bastillada remained atlarge.

On 23 May 2012, Bastillada filed a Motion to Dismiss? on the groundthat there was no probable cause to hold her for trial, and that she wasdenied due process by reason of OMB-Mindanao's failure to inform her ofthe charges against her. Said motion was denied in an Order dated 27March 2012, since Bastillada had yet to submit to the trial court'sjurisdiction." However, upon reconsideration, Judge Viacrusis dismissed thecase as against her through a Resolution dated 5 September 2012,7 thedispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby reconsiders and sets aside itsOrder dated October 17, 2010 finding probable cause insofar as it includedmovant/accused AILEEN D. BASTILLADA. The warrant of arrest issuedby virtue thereof, in so far as it included said movant, is hereby cancelledand set aside. For lack of probable cause as against her, accused AILEEND. BASTILLADA is hereby dropped from the information in the above-entitled case which shall continue as against the accused Jaime T. Bernat,Sr. (emphasis in the original)

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

SO ORDERED

In dismissing the case against Bastillada, the trial court held asfollows:

The information charged that although no services were renderedby the contractor to warrant the second partial payment in the net amountof P445,324.29, movant conspired with eo-accused Bernat in making anuntruthful statement when she also signed the List of Due andDemandable Accounts Payable (LDDAP) -

4 Information, Id., pp. 47-48.5 Id., pp. 89-96.6 Id., p. 88.7 Id., pp. 97-102.

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. flon. Hector SaliseSB-14-SCA -0001Page 3 of 10x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

warranting that the LDAP was prepared by her inaccordance with listing, budgeting, accounting and auditingrules and regulations and with intent to cause damage to thegovernment, payment was credited by the DBM to BrosConstruction and Supply Bank Account xxx, to theprejudice of the government.

Obviously, the subject statement "I hereby warrant that the aboveList of Due and Demandable AlPs was prepared in accordance withlisting, budgeting, accounting and auditing rules and regulations" is not anarration of facts but a conclusion of law, as in fact the LDDAP is astandard form allowing no space for narration of facts like name of project,location and percentage of completion. (citations omitted, italics andunderscoring in the original).

The said Resolution became final on 10 December 2012, with neitherparty filing any motion for reconsideration. In the interim, Judge Dante LuzN. Viacrucis retired from service and was replaced by respondent, JudgeSalise.

Thereafter, in the course of the prosecution's presentation ofevidence, private respondent Bernat filed a Motion to Dismisst dated 15April 2013, citing as ground therefor the 5 September 2012 Resolutiondismissing the case as against Bastillada. The People, for its part, filed aComment/Opposition (Re: Accused's Motion to Dismiss dated April 15,2013) dated 6 May 2013.9

On 4 June 2013, respondent Judge rendered the assailed Decision,dismissing the case against private respondent Bernat on the basis of theearlier dismissal rendered in favor of BastilIada. Respondent Judge likewiseheld that, at the said juncture, there was insufficient evidence to sustain thecharge against private respondent, thus -

WHEREFORE, in view thereof, the Motion to Dismiss is herebygranted, it is hereby ordered that this case be DISMISSED and accusedJAIME T. BERNAT, SR., be ACQUITTED of the crime. The bail bondposted for his temporary liberty is hereby ordered released to him or hisauthorized representative.

SO ORDERED

8 Id., pp. 104-111.9/d.,pp.112-115.

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Hon. Hector SaliseSB-14-SCA-000 1Page 4 of 10x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

On 30 September 2013, herein petitioners Sabafia and Brandares fileda Motion for Reconsideration (DECISION dated June 4,2013/° before thecourt a quo. Petitioner OMB-Mindanao later on filed a Manifestation (Re:Motionfor Reconsideration), 11 stating as follows:

1) In an Order dated 21 October 2013, this Honorable Courtdirected the Office of the Ombudsman to submit its Comment on theMotion for Reconsideration filed by the private complainants within five(5) days from receipt thereof, after which the same is deemed submittedfor resolution.

2) That a reading of the Motion for Reconsideration wouldshow that the private complainants have extensively and exhaustivelydiscussed all the issues and arguments for this Honorable Court to grantthe same and reverse its Decision dated June 4,2013.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

In an Order dated 21 October 2013, respondent Judge deniedpetitioners Sabafia and Brandares's Motion for Reconsideration for lack ofpersonality to file the same, and on the ground of double jeopardy. Therelevant portions of the Order read:

This threats (sic) of the motion for reconsideration filed by privatecomplainants Marcial Sabafia and Editha Brandares in this case, of whichan opposition was submitted by herein accused.

Required to file its comment, the Office of the Ombudsman filed aManifestation.

Going over the records of this case, the motion for reconsiderationhas to be denied. First, private complainants have no personality to filesaid motion. It should be the Office of the Ombudsman who should havefiled it. It never did. It filed a Manifestation in consonance with the Orderof this Court. It cannot be considered a motion for reconsideration, and ifit is, it is filed out of time.

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx

Petitioners now argue that respondent Judge committed grave abuseof discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when he dismissedthe case against private respondent during the middle of trial on the basis ofinsufficiency of evidence. They also claim that Sabafia and Brandares had

10 Id., pp. 116-120.11 Id., pp. 122-125.

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Hon. Hector SaliseSB-14-SCA-OOO 1Page 5 of 10x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

ample personality to file the motion for reconsideration before the court a

quo.

On the other hand, private respondent argues in his Comment to thePetition for Certiorari'? that: (i) the petition was filed out of time due toOMB-Mindanao's failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the trialcourt's Decision; (ii) Sabafia and Brandares's motion for reconsiderationbefore the trial court did not toll the period for the People to file the presentpetition since they had no personality to file said motion in the first place;and, (iii) Sabafia and Brandares are guilty of Usurpation of OfficialFunctions under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code.

On 28 March 2017, private respondent filed a SupplementalComment+ reiterating his claim that double jeopardy has already set in dueto the finality of the assailed 4 June 2013 Decision. Private respondentattached a copy of the Certificate of Finality issued by the Branch Clerk ofCourt.

The Court resolves to dismiss the petition on procedural grounds.

The Petition was filed out of time:

Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition forcertiorari must be filed not later than 60 days from notice of the judgment,order, or resolution being assailed, or from the denial of a motion forreconsideration, if one is filed.

Petitioner OMB-Mindanao received a copy of the assailed Decisionon 16 September 20] 3. Yet, it did not file a motion for reconsideration, nordid it adopt the motion filed by petitioners Sabafia and Brandares. Thus, ithad 60 days from 16 September 2013, or until IS November 2013, withinwhich to file its Petition.

As it turned out, however, the Petition was filed by registered mailonly on 24 February 20] 4 - way beyond the reglementary period.

There is no merit in petitioner OMB-Mindanao's posturing that the60-day reglementary period should be counted from receipt of the 21

12 Id., pp. 129-157.13 Id., pp. 164-166.

/

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Hon. Hector SaliseSB-14-SCA-OOO1Page 6 of 10x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

October 2013 Order denying Sabafia and Brandares's motion forreconsideration. For one, the general rule is that it is only the State that canassail an order or decision dismissing a criminal case. As held in Neplum,Inc. v. Orbeso: 14

In People v. Santiago, the Court has definitely ruled that in acriminal case in which the offended party is the State, the interest of theprivate complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civilliability arising therefrom. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial courtor if there is an acquittal, an appeal of the criminal aspect may beundertaken, whenever legally feasible, only by the State, through theSolicitor General. As a rule, only the Solicitor General may represent thePeople of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended party orcomplainant may not undertake such appeal.

In this case, even if Sabafia and Brandares were the ones who filedthe complaint before OMB-Mindanao, they could not be considered as theprivate offended parties before the trial court, given that no civil liabilitywas due to them even if the accused were to be found guilty. This is so sincethere is nothing on record that would show that Sabafia and Brandaresrepresent the government in any capacity, or personally suffered injurywhich may be recompensed through payment of civil liability. Thus, giventhe factual milieu, the ruling in Perez v. fIagonoy Rural Bank, Inc.,15 reliedupon by petitioner OMB-Mindanao - recognizing the personality of privateparties to bring before the appellate courts petitions for certiorari to assailorders and decisions resulting in either dismissal or acquittal - isinapplicable.

As correctly pointed out by the court a quo, Sabafia and Brandareshad no personality to file a motion for reconsideration of the assailedDecision since they were not parties in the proceedings a quo, nor were theythe private offended parties." Necessarily, their participation thereat waslimited to being witnesses. In the same manner, they have no personality tojoin in, or file, the present Petition.

OMB-Mindanao, for its part, did not file any motion to assail the trialcourt's decision, nor did it adopt Sabafia and Brandares's submission.Instead, it simply filed - outside of the IS-day period to file a motion forreconsideration - a Manifestation, which neither contained an explanation

14 G.R. No. 141986, 11 July 2002.15 G.R. No. 126210,9 March 2000.16 Caes v. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. Nos. 74989-90, 8 November 1989.

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Hon. Hector SaliseSB-14-SCA-OOO 1Page 7 of 10x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

for its inaction, nor a prayer to adopt Sabafia and Brandares's motion forreconsideration.

To reiterate, since the Petition was filed only on 24 February 2014, ornearly 100 days beyond the reglementary period, the Court has no optionbut to deny the same. In this connection, it is apropos to stress that rulesprescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, "have oft beenheld as absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and tothe orderly and speedy discharge of business"!" and the efficient and orderlydischarge of judicial functions.

The Petition for Certiorari shouldhave been filed by the Office of theSpecial Prosecutor (aSP)

In addition, it is important to point out that the Petition should havebeen filed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor (aSP) pursuant to Sec. 4of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606, as amended;" which provides thatpetitions for the issuance of the writ of certiorari shall be brought beforethis Court in the name of the People of the Philippines by the aSP. Thus:

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxx xx

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction overpetitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of itsappellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quowarranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed underExecutive Order Nos. I, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That thejurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court.

The procedure prescribed in Batas Parnbansa Big 129, as well as theimplementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may hereafterpromulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals, shallapply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In allcases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganhayan to theSupreme COll!1, the Office of the Ombudsman through its special prosecutor,shall represent the PeQQ.k of the Phi.l.imlliles except in cases filed pursuant toExecutive Order Nos. 1,2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. (underscoring supplied).

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

17 Landbank of the Philippines v. Ascot Holdings and Equities; Inc., G.R. No. 175163, 19 October 2007.18 Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7975, R.A. No. 8249, and R.A. No. 10660.

/

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Hon. Hector SaliseSB-14-SCA-OOOlPage 8 of 10x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

The OSP, however, merely filed its Entry of Appearance on 23February 201719 simply stating:

Petitioner People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of theOmbudsman through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, respectfully enters itsappearance as counsel for petitioner in the above-entitled case pursuant toSection 4 of PO 1606, as amended, and requests that henceforth, copies of allpleadings, motions, notices, orders and other legal processes to be filed, issuedor served in connection with the above-entitled case be furnished theundersigned counsel.

Neither OMB-Mindanao nor the OSP provided any explanation fortheir courses of action in order to help justify their disregard for the law andthe rules. In addition to this, the OSP did not move to adopt the petitionfiled by the OMB-Mindanao. As such, the said petition remained as asubmission of OMB-Mindanao per se.

This Court is aware that, in several cases, the Supreme Court hadruled that the courts should maintain a healthy balance between the strictenforcement of procedural laws and the guarantee that every litigant begiven the full opportunity for the just and proper disposition of his cause."Courts have always favored a liberal construction of the rules that are meantto facilitate rather than frustrate the ends of justice." However, the partyinvoking the liberal application of the rules must show the presence ofexceptional circumstances that merit its relaxation. None was provided inthis case to justify the actions of OMB-Mindanao before this Court and thetrial court. The OSP is similarly silent in this regard.

As aptly held in Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc., v. Villareal, et

The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a componentof due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised onlyin the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. !I This beingso, x x x an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laiddown in the Rules of Court. Deviations from the Rules cannot betolerated. The rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to appreciateas the Rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealedcases. In an age where courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, the Rules

19 Id., pp. 159-160.20 Neypes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141524, 14 September 2005.21 Ginete v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127596,24 September 1998; Peoso, et al v. Dona, G.R. No.154018,03 April 2007; PAGCOR v. Angara, G.R. No.142937, 15 November 2005. ()I22 G.R. No. 181182, 10 April 2013, citing Fenequito v. Vergara, Jr, G.R. No. 172829, 18 July 2012.,

DECISIONPeople of the Philippines v. Hon. Hector SaliseS8-14-SCA-OOOIPage 9 of 10x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

need to be followed by appellants with greater fidelity. Their observancecannot be left to the whims and caprices of appellants. x x x

Given that the Petition is dismissible due to obvious procedural and'technical infirmities, it becomes unnecessary to discuss the merits ofpetitioners' arguments and private respondent's comment thereto. As heldin Lazaro v. Court ofAppeals:23

xxxx "Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply becausetheir non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party'ssubstantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed exceptonly for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed torelieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of histhoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed." TheCourt reiterates that rules of procedure, especially those prescribing thetime within which certain acts must be done, "have oft been held asabsolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to theorderly and speedy discharge of business. x x x The reason for rules of thisnature is because the dispatch of business by courts would be impossible,and intolerable delays would result, without rules governing practice x x x.Such rules are a necessary incident to the proper, efficient and orderlydischarge of judicial functions."

As noted earlier, petitioners failed to show that this case falls withinthe exceptions to warrant the relaxation of procedural rules.

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Petition for Certioraridated 20 February 2014 is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

/BA YA I . JACINTO

As.~ ciate Justice

23 G.R. No. 137761,6 April 2000; citations omitted.

DECISIONPeople a/the Philippines v. flan. Hector SaliseSB-14-SCA -000 IPage 10 of 10x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

WE CONCUR:

7I

II

Associate JusticeChairperson

R ALD .CRUZAssociate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached inconsultation with the Justices of the Court's Division.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and theDivision Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in theabove Decision had been reached in consultation before the case wasassigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.