CASE DIGEST: Lazaro vs. People of the Philippines

 

G.R. No. 230018, June 23, 2021

NORMAN ALFRED F. LAZARO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

 

FACTS:

On October 25, 2009, Gian Dale Galindez, who was a friend of Norman Alfred Lazaro, purportedly jumped from the 26^th floor of the Renaissance 2000 Condominium to his untimely death. At the time of the incident, Galindez was in the presence of Lazaro and a common friend of theirs, Kevin Jacob Escalona.

The deceased Galindez's father filed a criminal complaint for Giving Assistance to Suicide under Article 253 of the RPC against Lazaro and Escalona. The Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City found probable cause to file an Information for the said crime before the RTC. This prompted Lazaro and Escalona to file a petition for review before the DOJ, which was granted. On motion for reconsideration by Galindez's father, however, the OCP Pasig's resolution was reinstated.

On May 17, 2010, an Information was filed against Lazaro and Escalona before the RTC. Lazaro was arraigned and after refusing to enter a plea, the court entered a plea of not guilty for him. Escalona, on the other hand, filed a Motion to Quash, alleging that the facts charged in the Information do not constitute an offense. This motion was granted by the RTC. In the same Order, however, the OCP Pasig was given 10 days from receipt of the Order to file an Amended Information.

The OCP Pasig filed a Compliance/Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Information with the Amended Information attached, notably dropping Escalona from the charges. The filing of the Amended Information was done 17 days from the OCP Pasig's receipt of the RTC's Order and therefore beyond the ten-day period provided in the said Order. Lazaro assailed the Compliance/Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Information via a Motion to Expunge.

Subsequently, the OCP Pasig filed a Motion for Clarification, pointing out that the dispositive portion of the RTC's Order contained contradictory statements, i.e., granting Escalona's Motion to Quash, while at the same time giving the prosecution an opportunity to correct the defect in the Information. Lazaro again filed a Motion to Expunge in opposition to this Motion for Clarification, on the ground that the RTC's Order had already become final and immutable.

On August 4, 2014 the RTC issued an Order stating that it concurs with the observation of the private prosecutor and that it intended not to order the quashal of the information but to give the prosecution an opportunity to correct the defect by way of an amendment pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Lazaro filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the RTC's Order granting Escalona's Motion to Quash had already become final and immutable when the prosecution did not file an Amended Information ten days from receipt of said Order. Hence, it can no longer be amended or clarified by the RTC.

The RTC denied Lazaro’s MR.

ISSUE:

Whether the case should be dismissed due to the belated amendment of Information

RULING:

Granting the Motion to Quash would mean the quashal of the information and dismissal of the criminal case. If the RTC truly intended this, there would be no reason for it to have ordered the OCP Pasig or the DOJ to file an amended information within ten days from receipt, because the case would have already been dismissed.

The Court is aware of the doctrine that where there is a conflict between the dispositive portion or fallo of a decision and the opinion of the court contained in the body of the decision, the fallo will prevail. However, this rule is not without exception. Where the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision is so clear as to show that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will prevail.

In this case, the body of the Order discourages any conclusion that the intent of the RTC was to dismiss the case against Lazaro. The RTC's reference to Sections 4 and 5, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure further buttresses the conclusion that it never intended to dismiss the case pending before it.

When an accused files a motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the trial court is mandated to deny the motion and give the prosecution an opportunity to amend the information.

The RTC, based solely on the vagueness of the fallo of its Order, cannot be presumed to have dismissed the case in direct contravention of the foregoing provisions of the Rules and relevant jurisprudence. This is especially so given the unequivocal language of the body of its Order. The conclusion that must be made, therefore, is that the RTC never dismissed the case against Lazaro and Escalona; hence, no such dismissal could have become final and immutable.

It was well within the RTC's discretion to clarify the Order, the latter not being a dismissal of the criminal case. Finding that there was an irreconcilable contradiction in the fallo of the Order, the RTC merely exercised its inherent power to amend and control its processes and orders to make the same conformable to law and justice, recognized in Section 5, 42 Rule 135 of the Rules of Court.

The RTC was not in error when it allowed the amendment of the information despite the belated filing by the prosecution of its Compliance/Motion to Admit Amended Information.

It must be noted that the Rules do not prescribe a period for filing an amended information by the prosecution when so ordered by the trial court in response to a motion to quash. In this case, the ten-day period was set by the RTC in its discretion. The RTC could also validly set a shorter or longer period within reason, in the sound exercise of its discretion. All the more should the RTC be empowered to allow or admit the amended information despite being filed beyond the period it initially fixed in its Order.