CONTROL OF PROSECUTION

10. MERCIALES vs CA, G.R. 124171, March 18, 2002

FACTS: Criminal cases for rape with homicide in connection of the death of Maritess
Merciales were filed against private respondents/accused. During the trial, the public
prosecutor filed a motion for the discharge of accused Nuada so that he could be a
state witness but the prosecution contended that it was not required to present
evidence to warrant the discharge of Nuada because he was already under the
Witness Protection Program of the DOJ but this was motion was denied for failure of
prosecutor to present evidence provided in Sec 9, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure. The private respondents then filed a motion to set the case for
hearing based on their constitutional right to speedy trial which was granted and the
hearing was set on July 29, 1994. On that date, the prosecution filed an MR, instead of
presenting of further evidence. The hearing was postponed and set for another
hearing. Also, the prosecutor again filed for MR and invoked its pending petition for
certiorari with the SC but the respondents objected to reset the hearing again. The
judge called for recess to allow the prosecution to present the NBI agent would be
presented to prove the extrajudicial confession of the accused Nuada but after the
recess, the public prosecutor declined to present the NBI agent and manifested that it
would not anymore present further evidence. The defense then moved that the cases
be deemed submitted for decision and asked leave of court to file a DEMURRER to
evidence. The RTC dismissed the charge of rape with homicide based on demurrer to
evidence filed by private respondents/accused.

ISSUE: Was the public prosecutor guilty of serious nonfeasance?

RULING: YES. The trial court required the public prosecutor to present evidence to justify
Nuadas discharge as state witness but it insisted there was no need to do so because
Nuada was already under the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ. Due to this
refusal to present the required evidence it prompted the trial court to deny the motion
to discharge Nuada. Again, the trial court the directed public prosecutor to present
Atty. Caabay, the NBI agent who took Nuadas extrajudicial confession but the
prosecutor declared that he was resting the prosecutions case, knowing fully well that
the evidence he previously presented was not sufficient to convict the accused. And
due to that, a demurrer to evidence was filed by the accused and was granted by the
trial court. It was then clear that the public prosecutor was guilty of serious
nonfeasance. It was his duty to take all steps to protect the rights of the people in trial.
He should have exhausted all available proof to establish the guilt of the accused.
Hence, it was very apparent that the public prosecutor violated the due process rights
of the private complainant owing to its blatant disregard of procedural rules and the
failure to present available crucial evidence, which would tend to prove the guilt or
innocence of the accused therein. Therefore, when there is a finding that there was
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in dismissing the criminal case by
granting the accuseds demurrer to evidence, the judgment of the trial court is
considered VOID.