Eulogio R. Lerum et al., petitioners-appellants vs. The people of the Philippines, necessary party, vs. Roman A. Cruz et al...

Title

extracted text

VII Eulogi<1 R. Lerum et al., PeWfontirs.appellants v. The Peopfe of the Philippines, Nectissary Party, vs. Roman A. Cntz. et al., Respon. dcnts •. 4.ppdlees, G. R. No. 2783, NQVtimber 29, 1950. DEC.LARA.TORY RELIEF; IN A CRIMINAL CASE; PAJ i TIES; INTEREST AND PERSONALTTY OF PRIVATE PROSECUTOR. - In a petition for declaratory relief filed to test the suf ficiency or probative value of certain testimony given in a criminal case, the interested party is the people of the Phil ippines. In such case, the city attorney should be the one to ask for the declaratory relief if it is desired to have said matter tested in court and if a.nd when this step is feasible under the law. Inasmuch as all criminal actions can only be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal and for that matter he is the only official who can re present thE> peoplE> of the Philippines, private prosecutors, who can only intervene subject to the control of the fisca.l or city attorney, are not the proper parties to file the afore said petition for declaratory relief. Antonio Barredo, Eu.logio R. Lerum and G. Viola Fernando for n,ppellants. No apptiarance for appellees. D EC I S I O N BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Ins tance of Rizal (Quezon City) dismissing the petition for declara.. tory relief filed by attorneys Eulogio R. Lerum and G. Viola. Fernando as private prosecutors in behalf of the People of the Philippines for the purpose of testing the sufficiency and proha.. tive value of the testimony of former Judge Roman A. Cruz to prove a decree of divorce ii;;sued by him ·while a judge of First Instance of Manila sometime in 1944. It appears that a case for bigamy was filed against Nello March 31, 1954 THE LA WYERS JOURNAL 183 or to a statute or ordinance, !o warrant declaratory relief. Any other matter not mentioned therein is deemed excluded. This it under the principle of e:qwes.sio unfos est c:rclwisio t.lo'.teri1t11. Now, does the subject matter under consideration come with in the import of the ruJe? The answer cannot but be in the negative, tor it does not refel" to any wl'itten instrument, st""tnte or ordinance. It merely refers to the sutficicncy or probat1ve value of an oral evidence concerning a tlecree of divorce issued by a former judge, which the court trying the bigamy cnse has ample power .and authority to pass upon. This is not the 01> portune moment to look into the correctness of the ruling of the court in said bigamy case allowing the presentation of oral evi dence to prove a dcc1·ee o( divorce under t.he circumstances at present obtaining, for the bigamy case is still pending detcnnina t1on. This will be determined in due time when p1·operly pre sented before this Court. For the purposes of this appeal, it suffices for this Court to declare that the subject matter of the petition docs not warrant the granting of declarator)' relief within the meaning of said Rule 66. . Wherefore, the order appealed from 1s affirmed, without pro nouncement as to costs. Moran, Paras, Feria, Pablo; Bengzon; Padilla, Tua-Son: Montemayor, Reyes, and Jugo. - J.J. concur. e

Date

1954

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Media