MARTINEZ V.

CA Narvasa, CJ October 13, 1994 RATIO DECIDENDI: The remedy from an order of dismissal is appeal, not the special civil action for certiorari QUICK FACTS: VP a!rel filed an information before the "TC for libel a#ainst $artine%& The case 'as set for arrai#nment and pre(trial b!t 'as cancelled t'ice& )pon a motion to dismiss filed by $artine%, the "TC *!d#e dismissed the information& )pon +ppeal, the C+, #ranted the appeal and remanded the case to the "TC for arrai#ment and pre(trial& $artine% assails the Order ar#!in# that the trial co!rt had already dismissed the case& FACTS: On complaint of then Vice(President ,alvador -& a!rel, an .nformation 'as filed before the $anila "TC char#in# $an!el /& $artine% 'ith libel arisin# from the alle#edly dero#atory and sc!rrilo!s imp!tations and insin!ations a#ainst a!rel contained in $artine%0 article entitled 1The ,orro's of a!rel1 p!blished on Jan!ary 2, 1993 in his $anila Times col!mn Narro' 4ate& $artine% filed a 1$otion for "einvesti#ation1 'hich, 'as denied by J!d#e 5!%on& The case 'as set for arrai#nment and pre(trial b!t 'as cancelled in vie' of J!d#e 5!%on0s retirement& Complainant a!rel filed a motion to set the case for arrai#nment and pre(trial& +ction on the motion 'as held in abeyance by the pairin# *!d#e, -on& 4erardo Pepito, pendin# ass!mption of d!ty of J!d#e 5!%on0s s!ccessor& $artine% filed a petition 'ith the 6OJ see7in# revie' of the resol!tion of the City Prosec!tor findin# a prima facie case of libel a#ainst him& +ccordin#ly, 3rd +sst& City Prosec!tor o!rdes C& Tabana# filed before the trial co!rt a motion to s!spend proceedin#s pendin# resol!tion by the 6OJ of $artine%0 petition for revie', 'hich 'as #ranted by J!d#e Pepito& Complainant a!rel attempted once more to have the case set for arrai#nment and trial& No action 'as ta7en on his said motion& 8y a letter addressed to the City Prosec!tor then +ctin# J!stice ,ecretary 8ello declared that 'hile the lan#!a#e !sed in the article may be !nsavory and !npleasant to complainant, the same 'as not actionable as libel, as if embodied merely an opinion protected as a privile#ed comm!nication !nder +rticle 394 of the "evised Penal Code& + motion to dismiss Criminal Case 'as filed and set for hearin#& +t the hearin#, !pon manifestation of complainant0s co!nsel, as private prosec!tor, that he had received no copy of the motion to dismiss, the trial co!rt directed the case prosec!tor to f!rnish said co!nsel the desired copy, #ivin# the latter ten :13; days to respond thereto& .t does not appear that the case prosec!tor complied 'ith the trial co!rt0s order< this not'ithstandin#, said co!rt, thro!#h Presidin# J!d#e "oberto +& 8arrios, iss!ed an Order= 8efore arrai#nment 'as had, the 6epartment of J!stice cond!cted > since concl!ded revie' and reinvesti#ation of the char#es of the prosec!tion0s motion to dismiss& The prosec!tion0s fresh stand is that 1there is no s!fficient evidence a#ainst the said acc!sed to s!stain the alle#ation in the information&1 Comin# as it does from the officials havin# control of the prosec!tion and at this sta#e of the proceedin#s, and there bein# no ob*ection, the motion to dismiss is #ranted& The Co!rt of +ppeals, iss!ed a "esol!tion #rantin# the appeal and remandin# the case for arrai#nment of the acc!sed and trial on the merits&

 The +ppellate Co!rt r!led that private complainant had 1s!fficient personality and a valid #rievance a#ainst the order of dismissal before arrai#nment1 and that the remedy of appeal 'as properly available beca!se the order of dismissal 'as a final order 'hich terminated all proceedin#s in the case& -ence, the present reco!rse& ISSUES: ?ON the *!d#ment of the Co!rt of +ppeal 'arrants reversal DECISION: No& Petition is 6@N.@6& The resol!tions of the Co!rt of +ppeals are affirmed& HELD: +ppeal a#ainst the order of dismissal 'as not foreclosed by the r!le of do!ble *eopardy, said order havin# iss!ed before arrai#nment& e#al *eopardy attaches only :a; !pon a valid indictment, :b; before a competent co!rt, :c; after arrai#nment, :d; a valid plea havin# been entered, and :e; the case 'as dismissed or other'ise terminated 'itho!t the eApress consent of the acc!sed& 9 )nder ,ection B, "!le 1BB of the 1922 "!les of Criminal Proced!re, the ri#ht to appeal from a final *!d#ment or order in a criminal case is #ranted to 1any party1, eAcept 'hen the acc!sed is placed thereby in do!ble *eopardy& .n People vs& Nano, the Co!rt, 'hile declarin# the petition filed before it by the private co!nsel for the offended parties to be defective in form, nevertheless too7 co#ni%ance thereof in vie' of the #ravity of error alle#edly committed by the respondent *!d#e a#ainst the prosec!tion C denial of d!e process C as 'ell as the manifestation and motion filed by the Office of the ,olicitor 4eneral prayin# that the petition be treated as if filed by the said office& The same eAceptional circ!mstances obtainin# in the Nano, case *!stified the Co!rt of +ppeals0 ta7in# co#ni%ance of the appeal filed by private complainant a!rel, i&e&= denial of d!e process consistin# in the fail!re of the prosec!tion to f!rnish co!nsel for private complainant a copy of the motion to dismiss despite bein# ordered to do so, as 'ell as of the $anifestation in ie! of +ppellee0s 8rief filed by the ,olicitor 4eneral in the appellate co!rt, recommendin# the settin# aside of the Order of the lo'er co!rt and the remand of the case to the co!rt a D!o for f!rther proceedin#s& The proced!ral reco!rse of appeal ta7en by private complainant a!rel is correct beca!se the order of dismissal 'as a final order& .t finally disposed of the pendin# action so that nothin# more co!ld be done 'ith it in the lo'er co!rt& .n 8ell Carpets .nternational Tradin# Corp& vs& Co!rt +ppeals, this Co!rt held that 1:t;he remedy a#ainst s!ch a *!d#ment is an appeal, re#ardless of the D!estions so!#ht to be raised on appeal, 'hether of fact, or of la', 'hether involvin# *!risdiction or #rave ab!se of discretion of the Trial Co!rt& & & & :T;he party a##rieved & & & did not have the option to s!bstit!te the special civil action of certiorari !nder "!le E9 for the remedy of appeal provided for in "!le 41& .ndeed, the eAistence and availability of the ri#ht of appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action of certiorari&1 The r!le 'ith respect to the disposition of motions to dismiss filed by the fiscal 'as laid do'n by the Co!rt in Crespo vs& $o#!l, 'here it 'as held that= The r!le therefore in this *!risdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Co!rt any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acD!ittal of the acc!sed rests in the so!nd discretion of the Co!rt& +ltho!#h the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosec!tion of criminal even cases 'hile the case is already in Co!rt he cannot impose his opinion on the trial co!rt& The Co!rt is the best and sole *!d#e on 'hat to do 'ith the case before it& The determination of the case is 'ithin its eAcl!sive *!risdiction

and competence& + motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal sho!ld be addressed to the Co!rt 'ho has the option to #rant or deny the same& .t does not matter if this is done before or after the arrai#nment of the acc!sed or that the motion 'as filed after a reinvesti#ation or !pon instr!ctions of the ,ecretary of J!stice 'ho revie'ed the records of the investi#ation& ?hat no' concerns the Co!rt here 'ith is ho' the trial *!d#e acted in relation to the motion to dismiss& /irst, he #ranted the same 'itho!t the prosec!tion havin# f!rnished private complainant a copy of the motion despite havin# been ordered to do so, thereby effectively deprivin# private complainant of his day in co!rt& ,econdly, the dismissal 'as based merely on the findin#s of the +ctin# ,ecretary of J!stice that no libel 'as committed& The trial *!d#e did not ma7e an independent eval!ation or assessment of the merits of the case& "eliance 'as placed solely on the concl!sion of the prosec!tion that 1there is no s!fficient evidence a#ainst the said acc!sed to s!stain the alle#ation in the information1 and on the s!pposed lac7 of ob*ection to the motion to dismiss, this last premise bein#, ho'ever, D!estionable, the prosec!tion havin# failed, as observed, to #ive private complainant a copy of the motion to dismiss& .n other 'ords, the #rant of the motion to dismiss 'as based !pon considerations other than the *!d#e0s o'n personal individ!al conviction that there 'as no case a#ainst the acc!sed& ?hether to approve or disapprove the stand ta7en by the prosec!tion is not the eAercise of discretion reD!ired in cases li7e this& The trial *!d#e m!st himself be convinced that there 'as indeed no s!fficient evidence a#ainst the acc!sed, and this concl!sion can be arrived at only after an assessment of the evidence in the possession of the prosec!tion& ?hat 'as imperatively reD!ired 's the trial *!d#e0s o'n assessment of s!ch evidence, it not bein# s!fficient for the valid and proper eAercise of *!dicial discretion merely to accept the prosec!tion0s 'ord for its s!pposed ins!fficiency& The dismissal order havin# been iss!ed in violation of private complainant0s ri#ht to d!e process as 'ell as !pon an erroneo!s eAercise of *!dicial discretion, the Co!rt of +ppeals did not err in settin# aside said dismissal order and remandin# the case to the trial co!rt for arrai#nment of petitioner as acc!sed therein and for f!rther proceedin#s&