RODOLFO R. AQUINO AND SEVERINO B. BUGARIN, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR AND ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PRO­SECUTOR, RESPECTIVELY OF PANGASINAN, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. DEO…

On February 29, 1988,
an information was filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Dagupan City
charging private respondent Rodolfo Mejia, alias “Ruding”
with the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm.  In said information, nine (9) persons appear as witnesses for the prosecution.

Upon being arraigned, private respondent entered a plea of
“not guilty”, after which the prosecution began the presentation of its evidence.  Complainant Virgilio
Quinto was the prosecution’s first witness.  In the course of Quinto’s
cross-examination, he admitted that he and private respondent were subjected to paraffin tests.

After the cross-examination of Virgilio
Quinto, the defense verbally moved for the dismissal
of the case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.  Acting on said motion, and despite the
vigorous objection of the prosecution, the respondent Judge, in open court,
issued the following Order dated October
14, 1988, to wit:

“Acting on the motion of the defense for reason of
insufficiency of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt, and finding the same well taken;

“As prayed for, this case is hereby DISMISSED with costs de
oficio.

“The property bond posted for the provisional liberty of the
accused is hereby cancelled and released.

“SO ORDERED.”^[1]

On October 24, 1988,
petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by respondent
Judge in his Order dated November 21,
1988, thus:

“Submitted for resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration of
the Order dated October 14, 1988,
dismissing the case.

“Upon a consideration of the testimony of prosecution’s
principal witness, Virgilio Quinto
together with the Chemistry Report Nos. C-88-37 & C-88-38 (Exhs. 1 & 2) of Felisa Vigulla-Borcelis, NBI Forensic Chemist, finding Virgilio Quinto, positive of
nitrates and the accused Rodolfo Mejia, negative; the
only logical conclusion is that Virgilio Quinto and not the accused was in possession of the gun,
subject of this case.

“The Court firmly believes that there is no cause or reason to
hold the accused for further trial; and to allow the prosecution to present
further evidence will be an exercise in futility.  Furthermore, the accused might be placed in
double jeopardy.

“WHEREFORE, the ‘Motion for Reconsideration’ is hereby DENIED
for lack of merit.

“SO ORDERED.”^[2]

Hence, this petition for certiorari
seeking to nullify respondent Judge’s Orders dated October 14, 1988 and November 21, 1988 even as it prays for the issuance of a writ
of mandamus to
compel respondent Judge to reinstate criminal case No. D-8439, entitled
“People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo Mejia.”^[3]

In a resolution dated July 12,
1989, this Court
gave due course to the petition and considered the case submitted for decision.

Petitioners prosecutors
raise the following grounds for the allowance of the writs prayed for:

I

THE RESPONDENT JUDGE DENIED THE RIGHT OF THE PROSECUTION TO DUE
PROCESS OF LAW;

II

CHEMISTRY REPORT NOS. C-88-37 AND C-88­-38 (Exhs.
1 and 2) ARE PIECES OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE;

III

THE REINSTATEMENT OF CRIMINAL CASE NO. D-8439
WILL NOT PLACE THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT IN DOUBLE
JEOPARDY;

IV

THERE IS NO REGLEMENTARY PERIOD FOR THE FILING OF A SPECIAL CIVIL
ACTION OF CERTIORARI; and

V

RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DISMISSING CRIMINAL CASE NO. D-8439.  (Memorandum of petitioner, p. 5)

Petitioners question
respondent Judge’s dismissal of Criminal Case No. D-8439.  They claim that the prosecution had been
deprived of due process considering that only one witness so far had been
presented by it and that it has neither terminated the presentation of its
evidence nor rested its case. 
Petitioners likewise point out that the Chemistry Report (Exhs. 1 and 2) which states that private respondent
“was found negative of nitrates” cannot be the basis for the
dismissal of the case as the same is hearsay for not having been identified and
testified on by NBI Forensic Chemist Felisa Vigulla?Borcelis.

Petitioners’ contention
is meritorious.

Under Section 15, Rule
119 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, it is only after the prosecution
has rested its case that the accused may file a motion to dismiss the case on
the ground of insufficiency of evidence. 
It is therefore clear that private respondent’s motion to dismiss on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence suffers from prematurity,
having been interposed at the time when the prosecution was still presenting its evidence.

The orders issued by the respondent judge dismissing the case was
capricious and tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction.  Double jeopardy would
therefore not attach in such a case.

The chemistry report relied upon by respondent judge should not
have been considered as evidence since said report has not been properly
identified and testified on by NBI Forensic Chemist Felisa
Vigulla-Borcelis. 
Any evidence which a party desires to submit for the consideration of
the court must formally be offered by him (De Castro v. Court of Appeals, et
al. 75 Phil. 834).  The offer is
necessary because it is the duty of a judge to rest his findings of facts and
his judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by the
parties at the trial (U.S. v. Solano, 33 Phil. 582, Dayrit
v. Gonzales, 7 Phil. 182).

Respondent Judge’s questioned act constitutes gross and grave
abuse of discretion, which exhibits either a blatant disregard of
well-established, basic procedural laws or pathetic ignorance of the law.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is GRANTED.  The questioned orders dated October 14, 1988 and November 21, 1988 are hereby
declared NULL and VOID.  To avoid
suspicion of partiality, this case is hereby ordered to be re-raffled to another sala.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Melencio-Herrera, J., (Chairman), on leave.

^[1]
Petition, p. 4, p. 20, Rollo

^[2]
Petition, p. 5, pp. 4-5, Comment;
pp. 50-51, Rollo

^[3]
Comment of the Solicitor General, p. 1