LETICIA R.

MERCIALES, petitioner,
vs .
THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, JOSELITO NUADA,
PAT. EDWIN MORAL, ADONIS NIEVES, ERNESTO LOBETE, DOMIL
GRAGEDA, and RAMON "POL" FLORES, respondents.

[G.R. No. 124171. March 18, 2002.]

En Banc

Digest Author: Jude Fanila

Topic: 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure – Control of Prosecution

Case Summary: Petitioner is the private complainant, mother of a victim in the rape case filed against
respondents. Rape case was dismissed by RTC because public prosecutor in the case refused to comply
with RoC Rule 119 (procedure for allowing an accused to turn state witness) which would have allowed
him to present the only eyewitness to the case. Also refused to present another witness, an NBI agent who
took the extrajudicial testimony of one of the accused. Instead, rested the prosecution early. Petitioner
appeals the dismissal of the case before the RTC on the grounds of grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the public prosecutor, amounting to a deprival of due process.

SC rules in favor of petitioner. Finding that because public prosecutor AND the RTC refused to discharge
their duties there was a denial of due process. Thereby rendering the dismissal of the case b the RTC void
for having acted in excess or lack of jurisdiction. (Quotable quote – jurisdiction is the right to hear and
determine, not to determine without hearing)

Petitioners: Leticia Merciales – Mother of victims of respondents

Respondents: CA, Joselito Nuada, Pat. Edwin Moral, Adonies Nieves, Ernesto Lobete, Domil Grageda,
Ramon “Pol” Flores – accused before criminal cases.

Doctrines Involved: Revised All criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of
the public prosecutor.

Under Rule 110, Sec. 5 – duty of public prosecutor to bring the criminal proceedings for the punishment
of the guilty. This duty comes with the duty to pursue the prosecution of a criminal action and to
represent the public interest. Therefore, public prosecutor has the right and duty to take all steps to protect
the rights of the People of the Philippines in a trial. Thus, if a prosecutor commits a nonfeasance in
refusing to perform a specific duty they may be compelled via mandamus to do so.

Rule 119, Sec. 17 (originally sec. 9) requires the presentation of evidence in support of the prosecution’s
prayer for the discharge of an accused to be state witness. This is not discretionary, failure to do so is
tantamount to failure to discharge a duty or nonfeasance.

FACTS:
1. Aug. 12 1993 – RTC of Legaspi City (Branch 8) - Criminal Cases No. 6037-6312 – complaints
for rape with homicide, in connection with the death of one Maritess Ricafort Merciales were
filed against the respondents.
 2. During the trial, the public prosecutor filed a motion to discharge the accused, Nadua in order
that he may be used as a state witness.
a. Public prosecutor did not present evidence, contending that it was not required to do so to
warrant the discharge as Nadua was already admitted into the witness protection program
of the DoJ.
3. Respondent Judge denied the motion for discharge for failure of the prosecution to present
evidence as required under Rule 119, Sec. 9 of the 1985 rules of CrimPro. 1
4. Dec. 22 1993 – prosecution filed a petition for certiorari before the SC questioning the denial of
the motion to discharge. (No motion for TRO)
a. During the same period, RTC Judge did not set the case for further hearing to give
prosecution time to secure a TRO. (Remember, no motion for TRO so I guess he wanted
them to get one)
5. July 13 1994 – respondents filed a motion to set the case for hearing, invoking right to a speedy
trial.
a. Granted, case set for hearing on July 29 1994
6. July 29 1994 – prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration in lieu of presenting further
evidence. Respondent judge postponed hearing and set it to Aug. 9 1994
7. Same thing happened on Aug 9 – prosecution fled a motion for reconsideration, invoking their
pending petition for certiorari with the SC.
a. Respondents – objected to any further resetting of trial, claiming right to a speedy trial.
i. RTC Judge called for a recess – RTC directed prosecution to present the NBI
agent who took Nuada’s extrajudicial confession – Prosecution did not comply,
instead rested the case.
b. Aug. 29 1994 – SolGen field a motion for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction or
TRO – directed against RTC judge, to enjoin from resolution of the case – this was also
denied
i. Respondents also filed a demurrer to evidence around this time. (Demurrer is
motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of insufficiency of evidence)
8. Oct. 21 1994 – RTC acquitted all of the respondents. – appealed to the CA
9. Oct. 4 1995 – CA denied the appeal and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
10. Leading to current appeal for reversal of CA decision.
a. Initially, only petitioner appealed but later SolGen joined her appeal.

Case Trail
- Case before RTC for rape against respondents. Case was dismissed by RTC for insufficiency of
evidence.
- CA – affirmed RTC.

1
SEC. 9. Discharge of accused to be state witness. — When two or more persons are jointly charge with the commission of any
offense, upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or more of the accused to be
discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state when after requiring the prosecution to present
evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge, the court is satisfied
that:

(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested; (b) There is no other direct
evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused; (c) The
testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points; (d) Said accused does not appear to be the
most guilty; (e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.

Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. If the Court denies the motion for
discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence, (9a)
ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:
 Petitioner’s Argument related to Doctrine: Prosecutorial and judicial misconduct requires a
reopening of the case (undue haste – Prosecution premature resting | RTC – grant of demurrer to
evidence even when the evidence for the prosecution has not been completed)
 Respondent’s Argument related to Doctrine: That petitioner has no legal standing, as under RoC
Rule 110 Sec. 5 a private complainant can only question an acquittal as regards to its civil aspect.
No abuse of discretion or jurisdictional defect to warrant an annulment of judgment or certiorari
that reopening case will violate double jeopardy.

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N the prosecution committed a nonfeasance (failure to perform a duty) in the handling of the
case? – YES
a. Rule 110 – Sec. 5 of the RoC2 – all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or
by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. As the
State’s representative, public prosecutor has the right and duty to take all steps to protect
the rights of the People. If the prosecutor commits a nonfeasance by failing to perform a
specific duty such as Rule 110 Sec. 5, they can be compelled by mandamus.
i. In the above case, facts show that the public prosecutor was guilty of blatant
error and abuse of discretion as evidenced by:
1. Public prosecutor – presented only seven witnesses, none of which
actually saw the commission of the crime. Instead, it was Joselito Nuada
who came forward and expressed willingness to turn state witness. Thus,
Nuada’s testimony was vital for the case of the prosecution (sole
eyewitness).
2. Refusal to comply with the RTCs order to present evidence – as required
by RoC Rule 119 Sec. 17 – evidence must be presented in a request to
discharge an accused as state witness. Despite knowing this, prosecutor
refused to do so, insisting no need to present proof.
3. Also, after the trial court denied the motion to discharge Nuada as a state
witness he should have proceeded to complete the evidence of the
prosecution by other means. Instead, he deliberately refused to present
his other witness (the NBI agent)
a. A Public prosecutor is duty-bound to exhaust all available proofs
to establish the guilt of the accused.
2. W/N trial court guilty of nonfeasance? – YES
a. RTC – knowing the insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution to convict and their
insistence to use Nuada as a state witness despite not complying with RoC, RTC should
have called additional witnesses.
i. Instead, it let prosecutor mess up the case without doing anything.

SC – dismissal of RTC over the case is VOID for having been committed with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

2
Rule 110 Sec. 5 - all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under
the direction and control of the fiscal
 - Having been committed with GAD, no violation of the right to double jeopardy. i

RULING:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37341 is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The
Order
dismissing Criminal Case Nos. 6307-6312 is ANNULLED, and this case is
REMANDED to
the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Branch 8, for further proceedings. The public
prosecutor is ORDERED to complete the presentation of all available witnesses for the
prosecution.
SO ORDERED.
NOTES:
i
It is elementary that double jeopardy attaches only when the following elements concur: (1) the
accused are charged under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain
their conviction; (2) the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused have been arraigned and have
pleaded; and (4) they are convicted or acquitted, or the case is dismissed without their consent.