#1

Cobarrubias v. People
G.R. No. 160610| August 14, 2009

DOCTRINE: The general rule is that where there is a conflict between the fallo, or the dispositive
part, and the body of the decision or order, the fallo prevails on the theory that the fallo is the final
order and becomes the subject of execution, while the body of the decision merely contains the
reasons or conclusions of the court ordering nothing. However, where one can clearly and
unquestionably conclude from the body of the decision that there was a mistake in the dispositive
portion, the body of the decision will prevail.

FACTS:
In 1994, petitioner Judelio Cobarrubias was charged with Frustrated Homicide (Criminal
Case No. 94-5036), Homicide (Criminal Case No. 94-5038), Violation of Section 261(Q) of the
Omnibus Election Code in relation to Section 32 of Republic Act No. 7166 (Criminal Case No. 24-
392), and Illegal Possession of Firearms under Presidential Decree No. 1866 (Criminal Case No.
94-5037). Petitioner pleaded not guilty to all the charges and trial followed. On 20 March 2001,
Presiding Judge Florentino M. Alumbres of RTC issued an Order, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court rules that the prosecution failed to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Cases Nos. 94-5036
and 94-5037, and these cases are ordered DISMISSED. Criminal Cases Nos. 94-5038 and
24392 should be set for further trial. SO ORDERED.
On July 5, 2001, petitioner filed with the trial court a Motion for Correction of Clerical Error,
alleging that in the dispositive portion of the Order, Criminal Case No. 94-5038 should have been
dismissed instead of Criminal Case No. 94-5037, which should have been the case set for further
trial. Petitioner maintained that there was a typographical error in the dispositive portion
considering that in the body of the Order, the trial court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of petitioner in the charges for Homicide and Frustrated
Homicide. On February 26, 2002, Acting Judge Maceda denied the motion holding that the
alleged error was substantial in nature which affected the very merit of the case. MR was filed but
it was denied. On August 21, 2002, petitioner filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition with Prayer for aa Temporary Restraining Order or Writ of Preliminary Injunction to set
aside the Orders dated February 26, 2002 and July 23, 2002 of respondent Judge.
On 23 August 2002, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for failure to submit with
the petition a clear duplicate original or a certified true copy of the assailed Order dated 23 July
2002, and for failure of petitioner's counsel to indicate his current official receipt number and date
of payment of the current Integrated Bar of the Philippines membership dues, pursuant to SC Bar
Matter No. 287. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals granted. In a
Resolution dated 11 December 2002, the Court of Appeals directed petitioner to implead the
People of the Philippines as respondent. On 10 March 2003, the Court of Appeals dismissed the
petition for failure of petitioner to comply with the resolution. On 19 March 2003, petitioner filed an
Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Admit Amended Petition, which the Court of
Appeals dismissed. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed serious and reversible error in
dismissing the petition on the ground of a technicality, despite the petitioner’s compliance
with its resolution dated December 11, 2002.
(2) Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed serious reversible error in not giving
due course to the petition considering the merits thereof and the substantive rights of the
petitioner.

HELD:

(1) Yes. Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court also provides that rules shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding. Thus, in several cases, the Court has ruled against the
dismissal of petitions or appeals based solely on technicalities especially when there was
subsequent substantial compliance with the formal requirements. In this case, the Court finds the
petitioner's failure to implead the People of the Philippines as respondent not so grave as to
warrant dismissal of the petition. After all, petitioner rectified his error by moving for
reconsideration and filing an Amended Petition, impleading the People of the Philippines as
respondent. Moreover, this Court has repeatedly declared that the failure to implead an
indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. In such a case, the remedy is to
implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Parties may be added by order of the court,
on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as are
just. If the petitioner/plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the
court, the latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for petitioner's/plaintiff's failure to comply. In
this case, the Court of Appeals should have granted petitioner's motion for reconsideration and
given due course to the petition in view of petitioner's subsequent compliance by filing an
Amended Petition, impleading the People of the Philippines as respondent. Technicalities may be
set aside when the strict and rigid application of the rules will frustrate rather than promote justice.

(2) Yes. Petitioner's main contention is that there is a clerical error in the fallo or the dispositive
portion of Judge Alumbres' Order dated 20 March 2001, which should have dismissed Criminal
Case No. 94-5038 instead of Criminal Case No. 94-5037, considering that in the body of the
order, the trial court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of
petitioner in the charges for Frustrated Homicide (Criminal Case No. 94-5036) and Homicide
(Criminal Case No. 94-5038). However, respondent Acting Judge Maceda, who was assigned to
the trial court after Judge Alumbres retired, denied petitioner's motion for correction, holding that
the alleged error was substantial in nature.
The general rule is that where there is a conflict between the fallo, or the dispositive part,
and the body of the decision or order, the fallo prevails on the theory that the fallo is the final order
and becomes the subject of execution, while the body of the decision merely contains the reasons
or conclusions of the court ordering nothing. However, where one can clearly and unquestionably
conclude from the body of the decision that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the
body of the decision will prevail.
In this case, in the dispositive portion, the trial court erroneously dismissed Criminal Case
No. 94-5037 which refers to the charge for Illegal Possession of Firearms under Presidential
Decree No. 1866, while Criminal Case No. 94-5038 which refers to the charge for Homicide was
set for further trial. Considering the clear finding of the trial court that the prosecution failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of petitioner in the charges for Homicide and Frustrated
Homicide, while the two other charges for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Violation of the
Omnibus Election Code require further evidence, it is only just and proper to correct the
dispositive portion to reflect the exact findings and conclusions of the trial court. Thus, in
accordance with the findings of the trial court, Criminal Case No. 94-5036 (Frustrated Homicide)
and Criminal Case No. 94-5038 (Homicide) should be dismissed, while Criminal Case No. 94-
5037 (Illegal Possession of Firearms under Presidential Decree No. 1866) and Criminal Case No.
24-392 (Violation of Section 261(Q) of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to Section 32 of
Republic Act No. 7166) should be set for further trial.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.