Professional Documents
Culture Documents
124209-1998-Cuison v. Court of Appeals20211006-12-1gnyixq
124209-1998-Cuison v. Court of Appeals20211006-12-1gnyixq
SYNOPSIS
Accused Eduardo Cuison was found guilty of the crime of double homicide
and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment from 6 years and 1 day of prision
mayor as minimum to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum
for each offense. He was also ordered to pay indemnity to the heirs of the
victims for P30,000.00 each. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the said
decision was affirmed with the modification that the civil indemnity was
increased to P50,000.00. The accused elevated the decision before the
Supreme Court which denied the said petition. The case was remanded to the
Regional Trial Court for promulgation of the decision. However, the judge
promulgated the decision only with respect to the modified civil liability of the
accused but did not commit the accused to jail to commence service of his
sentence. Because of this development, the Assistant City Prosecutor requested
the Solicitor General to file a motion for clarification with the Court of Appeals.
Acting on the said motion, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution affirming
the decision of the trial court as to the penalty of imprisonment. The judge set
the promulgation of the decision anew, but the accused filed a motion to set
aside promulgation on the ground that said case was already promulgated and
that such promulgation will violate his constitutional right against double
jeopardy. The trial judge granted the motion of the accused. On petition for
certiorari and mandamus filed by the Solicitor General, the Court of Appeals
nullified the order of the trial court and ordered that the penalty of
imprisonment be enforced. Hence, this appeal. The issues raised by petitioners
are: (1) whether the writs of certiorari and mandamus were properly issued by
the Court of Appeals, and (2) whether petitioner's right against double jeopardy
was violated.
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the
Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals cannot be faulted for issuing a writ of
mandamus, in view of the trial court's refusal to perform its ministerial duty of
promulgating the Appellate Court's decision in its entirety. Obedience to a
superior court's order is a ministerial duty of lower courts. The Appellate
Court's questioned decision did not modify or amend its former decision. It
merely ordered the promulgation of the judgment of conviction and the full
execution of the penalty it had earlier imposed on petitioner. cSTDIC
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN IT MAY NOT PROSPER; CASE AT BAR. — As a rule,
a criminal prosecution includes a civil action for the recovery of indemnity.
Hence, a decision in such case disposes of both the criminal as well as the civil
liabilities of an accused. Here, trial court promulgated only the civil aspect of
the case, but not the criminal. As earlier observed, the promulgation of the CA
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
Decision was not complete. In fact and in truth, the promulgation was not
merely incomplete; it was also void. In excess of its jurisdiction, the trial judge
rendered a substantially incomplete promulgation on April 4, 1995, and he
repeated his mistake in his April 12, 1996 Order. We emphasize that grave
abuse of discretion rendered the aforementioned act of the trial court void.
Since the criminal cases have not yet been terminated, the first jeopardy has
not yet attached. Hence, double jeopardy cannot prosper as a defense. cDSaEH
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J : p
The Case
This is the gist of this Court's resolution of the petition for review on
certiorari, assailing the November 5, 1996 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals 2 in
CA-GR SP No. 41096. The dispositive portion of the said Decision, which set
aside the April 12, 1996 Resolution 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen,
Pangasinan, Branch 39, 4 reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolution dated April
12, 1996 of the respondent Judge is hereby SET ASIDE and he is
ordered to set anew the promulgation of the decision of the Court of
Appeals affirming the judgment of conviction and sentencing the
accused to serve imprisonment for the duration stated in the decision
of the said respondent Court dated February 7, 1989. The order for the
payment of the civil liabilities has been promulgated earlier.
SO ORDERED." 5
The Facts
The undisputed facts of this case, as narrated by the Court of Appeals, are
reproduced below:
Simply put, petitioner raises the following issues: (1) whether the writs of
certiorari and mandamus were properly issued by the Court of Appeals, and (2)
whether petitioner's right against double jeopardy was violated.
We find misleading the claim of petitioner that the Court of Appeals itself
acknowledged that the latter's July 30, 1991 Decision was "ambiguous and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
obscure." 15 Such claim is bereft of factual basis. Nowhere in its Resolution 16
did the CA so describe its previous Decision. It merely restated the import of its
July 30, 1991 Decision. Evidently, this was either misunderstood or distorted by
the trial court, which stated that "it is ineluctable that the penalty imposed by
the lower court was not touched on at all by [the Court of Appeals] . . ." 17
Lastly, petitioner contends that the petition for certiorari filed before the
Court of Appeals was improper, because the People had not filed a motion for
reconsideration of the assailed trial court Order. 19 This contention is bereft of
merit. A motion for reconsideration need not precede a petition for certiorari
where the questioned resolution was a patent nullity, as in this case. 20
And legal jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon a valid indictment; (b)
before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) [when] a valid plea
[has] been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without the express consent of the accused (citation
omitted)." 25
Epilogue
This Court takes this occasion to remind members of the bench to be
precise in their ponencias, most especially in the dispositions thereof. Accuracy
and clarity in substance and in language are revered objectives in. decision-
making.
Having said that, we also lament the trial court's convoluted attempt at
sophistry, which obviously enabled the petitioner to delay the service of his
imprisonment and to unnecessarily clog the dockets of this Court and of the
Court of Appeals. His Honor's expressed desire "to accept with modesty the
orders and decisions of the appellate court" was, in truth and in fact, merely a
sarcastic prelude to his veiled rejection of the superior court's order modifying
his earlier decision. His sophomoric justification of his refusal to obey for fear of
"being found to be grossly ignorant of the law" does not deserve one whit of
sympathy from this Court. Lady Justice may be blindfolded but she is neither
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
blind nor naive. She can distinguish chicanery from wisdom, fallacious
argument from common sense.
SO ORDERED. LLjur
Footnotes
11. See Esguerra vs. Court of Appeals, pp. 20-21, GR No. 119310, February 3,
1997, per Panganiban, J., quoting Alafriz vs. Nable, 72 Phil. 278, p. 280
(1941), citing Leung Ben vs. O'Brien, 38 Phil. 182 (1918); Salvador Campos y
Cia vs. Del Rosario, 41 Phil. 45 (1920); Abad Santos vs. Province of Tarlac, 38
Off. Gaz. 830; and Tavera-Luna, Inc. vs. Nable, 38 Off. Gaz. 62. See also San
Sebastian College vs. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 444, 458, March 20, 1991;
Sinon vs. Civil Service Commission , 215 SCRA 410, November 5, 1992;
Bustamante vs. Commission on Audit, 216 SCRA 134, 136, November 27,
1992; Zarate vs. Olegario, GR No. 90655, October 7, 1996
12. Ibid., p. 6; Rollo , p. 142.
13. See record, pp. 53-69.
14. People vs. Court of Appeals, 101 SCRA 450, 465, November 28, 1980, per
Melencio-Herrera, J.