View full case

FE P. ZALDIVAR v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Fe P. Zaldivar filed a petition for review on certiorari questioning the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) which set aside the orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in a criminal case. Zaldivar and Jeanette Artajo were charged with Estafa. During the trial, the prosecution presented witnesses who identified their respective affidavits as their direct testimonies. Zaldivar's counsel chose not to cross-examine the witnesses and Artajo's counsel was absent. Subsequently, the complainant filed a motion for inhibition against the judge and the case was re-assigned to another RTC branch. The new judge issued an order nullifying the previous proceedings and set the case for a new pre-trial conference. Zaldivar filed a motion to declare the prosecution's case terminated, but it was denied. Zaldivar filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, questioning the failure of the prosecution to prove the crime and alleging grave abuse of discretion by the new judge. The CA found strong and compelling reasons to set aside the RTC orders, ordered the trial court to proceed with the trial, and dismissed Zaldivar's argument regarding the failure of proof by the prosecution. Zaldivar's motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA. Unsatisfied, Zaldivar filed this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the prosecution failed to prove the commission of the crime charged by presenting only the affidavits of its witnesses;

  2. Whether there was grave abuse of discretion committed by Judge Catilo in nullifying the proceedings and setting the case anew for pre-trial.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petitioner's theory that the prosecution failed to prove the commission of the crime charged by presenting only the affidavits of its witnesses. The CA ruled that the manner in which the prosecution presents its evidence is within its discretion and is best left to the sound judgment of the trial court.

  2. The CA ruled that Judge Catilo grossly abused his discretion in nullifying the pre-trial proceedings conducted before Branch 33 and ordering a new pre-trial. The CA stated that Judge Catilo did not have the authority to nullify and set aside the proceedings and that instead of calling for a new pre-trial, he could have recalled witnesses as provided for in the Rules of Court.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The manner in which the prosecution presents its evidence is within its discretion and is subject to the sound judgment of the trial court.

  • The trial court does not have the authority to nullify and set aside proceedings already conducted and ordered a new pre-trial, but may recall witnesses as provided for in the Rules of Court.