Rule 110, Sec. 5, Case No.

2
JUDELIO COBARRUBIAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
SPECIAL FORMER SECOND DIVISION, and HON. BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA, Acting Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Las Pias City, Branch 255

Facts:
- Petitioner Judelio Cobarrubias was charged with Frustrated Homicide, Homicide, Violation of Section 261(Q)
of the Omnibus Election Code, and and Illegal Possession of Firearms under Presidential Decree No. 1866.
- Trial court dismissed the charges since there was failure to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt in in Criminal Cases Nos. 94-5036 and 94-5037.
- Petitioner filed with the trial court a Motion for Correction of Clerical Error alleging that in the dispositive
portion of the Order, Criminal Case No. 94-5038 should have been dismissed instead of Criminal Case No. 94-
5037, which should have been the case set for further trial.
- Respondent Acting Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda denied the motion, holding that the alleged error was
substantial in nature which affected the very merit of the case.
- In a RESOLUTION DATED 11 DECEMBER 2002, Court of Appeals directed petitioner to implead the People
of the Philippines as respondent.
- Thereafter, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for failure of petitioner to comply with the resolution.
- Upon elevation to SC, Petitioner contends that ERROR IN DISMISSING THE PETITION ON THE GROUND
OF A TECHNICALITY, DESPITE THE PETITIONERS COMPLIANCE WITH ITS RESOLUTION DATED 11
DECEMBER 2002.

Issue: WON the case should be dismissed on failure to implead the PEOPLE as an indispensable party

Held: No.
- As provided in Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, all criminal actions are
prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor.
- However, the failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of an action.
- In such a case, the remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Parties may be added by
order of the court, on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as
are just. If the petitioner/plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, the
latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for petitioners/plaintiffs failure to comply.
- Technicalities may be set aside when the strict and rigid application of the rules will frustrate rather than
promote justice. After all, petitioner rectified his error by moving for reconsideration and filing an Amended
Petition, impleading the People of the Philippines as respondent.
- Hence, the case should have not been dismissed on the aforementioned ground.