1. Fe. P. Zaldivar, accompanied by her husband Eliezer Zaldivar vs.

People of the Philippines and

Mamerto B. Dumasis
G.R. No. 197056. March 2, 2016

Doctrine: Pre-trial is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit the basic issues between the parties
and to take the trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering. Its chief objective is to
simplify, abbreviate and expedite or dispense with the trial.

Facts / Procedure:
1. Zaldivar and Artajo were charged with Estafa pursuant to a complaint filed by Dumasis before
RTC.
a. Pre-trial was held and a Pre-Trial Order was issued on the same date.
b. Both accused pleaded not guilty to the crime charged
2. Prosecution presented two witnesses, and both identified their respective affidavits, which
constituted their direct testimonies.
3. Dumasis, without the consent of the public prosecutor filed a Motion for Inhibition against Patag
which was granted by the latter. Case was re-raffled to Judge Catilo.
4. RTC Judge Catilo issued an Order denying the admission of the prosecution’s exhibits.
Judge Catilo also nullified and set aside the previous proceedings conducted and set the case
anew for pre-trial conference.
5. Zaldivar filed a Motion to Declare Prosecution’s Case Terminated. – DENIED
6. Zaldivar filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA:
a. Prosecution failed to prove the commission of the crime charged;
b. Grave abuse of discretion by Judge Catilo in nullifying the proceedings and setting
the case a new for pre-trial.
7. CA set aside the Orders of Judge Catilo and CA directed the TC to proceed with the trial of the
case.
 CA ruled that Judge Catilo commited grave abuse when he nullified the pre-trial proceedings
and ordered the conduct of a new pre-trial. The ordering of a new trial or re-opening of the
case is prejudicial to the accused.
 CA stated that instead of nullifying the proceeding, Judge Catilo could recall witness as
provided for in Sec 9, Rule 132.
8. Zaldivar points out that the denial of the admission of exhibits of the prosecution upon timely and
sustained objections of the accused has the effect of terminating the case of the prosecution for
failure to adduce competent and admissible evidence during trial proper.
9. Judge Catilo stated that the pre-trial order did not contain matters ought to be the subject
matter of a pre-trial conference

Issue: WON RTC Judge Catilo gravely abused its discretion in nullifying and setting aside the previous
proceedings conducted and ordered anew a pre-trial conference- YES

Held:
1. There is nothing on record that will show any disregard of the rule (Sec 1 Rule 118). Pieces of
evidence were marked, objections thereto were raised, issues were identified, no admissions on
factual matters were arrived at, and trial dates were set.
2. It cannot, however, simply set aside the proceedings that have been previously duly conducted,
without treading on the rights of both the prosecution and the defense who did not raise any
objection to the pre-trial proceedings.
3. The purpose of pre-trial (to simplify, abbreviate and expedite or dispense with the trial) was
clearly subverted when the trial court hastily set aside the pre-trial proceedings and its results.
Absent any palpable explanation as to why and how said proceedings were conducted is in
violation of the rules and thus should be set aside.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated May 31, 2010
and Resolution dated December 15, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 02085 are hereby
AFFIRMED. The Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 23, is ORDERED to proceed with Criminal
Case No. 03-57161 with dispatch.