On 20 November 2006, petitioner Javier, Macatiag's daughter,

discovered that the RTC had rendered a Decision[36] dated 31

October 2006 acquitting Gonzales of all charges.[37] On 16
January 2007, she filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
before the CA, citing grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of Judge Soluren. The
Office of the Solicitor General filed a Comment[38] dated 12
October 2007 praying that the Petition be denied due course
and dismissed for lack of merit. The OSG opined that Judge
Soluren did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing
the earlier Decision of Judge Buted.
The CA Ruling
In its assailed Decision, the CA dismissed the Petition for
Certiorari. It ruled out grave abuse of discretion on the part of
respondent Judge Soluren in granting private respondent's
Omnibus Motion and rendering a new judgment of acquittal. It
agreed with the theory of the OSG that the promulgation was
void, because respondent Gonzales had not been validly
notified of the rescheduled promulgation of judgment on 22
December 2005; that since Gonzales's lawyer, Atty. Benitez, had
already withdrawn his representation on the first scheduled
date of promulgation, respondent had no knowledge that the
promulgation had been rescheduled to 22 December 2005; that
since he was no longer Gonzales's lawyer, Atty. Benitez was
relieved of the duty to inform his client of court notices and
processes; that since respondent was not personally notified of
the rescheduled promulgation, Judge Buted's promulgation in
absentia was invalid.
The CA further adopted the OSG's stance that before resorting
to a Rule 65 petition for certiorari to question respondent
judge's act of acquitting private respondent, petitioner should
have first filed a motion for reconsideration. It ruled that a
motion for reconsideration is not only a plain and adequate
remedy available under the law, but is an indispensible
condition that must be satisfied before an aggrieved party can
resort to a special civil action for certiorari. The appellate court
held that since the remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration
was available to petitioner, and none of the exceptions to the
filing of that motion existed, the Petition must be dismissed.
The Issues
The main issue in this case is whether the CA erred in affirming
the Decision of acquittal issued by Judge Soluren, who had
ruled that there was no grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on her part when she gave due
course to the Omnibus Motion of private respondent
questioning his prior conviction.
In order to resolve the main issue, the following issues have to
be addressed:
 A. Whether there was a valid promulgation of judgment by
Judge Buted in her prior Decision of conviction;
B. Whether Judge Soluren's subsequent judgment of acquittal
is valid;
C. Whether a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is
the proper remedy to question a decision of acquittal
The Court's Ruling
The Petition is impressed with merit.
As a prologue to our ruling, We take cognizance of the unusual
circumstances surrounding this case. Petitioner is the daughter
of the original private complainant, Carmen Macatiag, who was
in turn the sister of the first victim, Rufino Concepcion. When
petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review with this Court,
the OSG filed a Manifestation and Motion[39] praying that the
People of the Philippines be removed as a co-petitioner
because the OSG was not joining petitioner in this Petition. The
pertinent portion[40] of the OSG's Manifestation and Motion
reads:
[T]he records will show that the OSG already took on a position
different from that of the petitioner Loida M. Javier when the
case was elevated to the Court of Appeals. Specifically, the OSG
in its Comment dated October 12, 2007 and Memorandum
dated November 24, 2008 was of the position that Honorable
Judge Soluren did not commit grave abuse of discretion when
she ruled to acquit Pepito Gonzales. In this regard, the
arguments raised by the OSG in the aforementioned pleadings
were in fact, adopted by the Court of Appeals in its Decision
dated May 22, 2010.
While the OSG ordinarily represents the People in proceedings
before this Court, We have in the past allowed private parties to
file certiorari petitions assailing rulings and orders of the RTC in
criminal cases.[41] As early as 1969, in Paredes v. Gopengco,
[42]
the Court already held that offended parties in criminal cases
have sufficient interest and personality as "persons aggrieved"
to file a special civil action of prohibition and certiorari under
Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65. That ruling was in line with the
underlying spirit of adopting a liberal construction of the Rules
of Court in order to promote their object. Recently, We
reiterated this ruling in Almero v. People.[43] Similarly, in the case
at bar, We find that the ends of substantial justice would be
better served and the issues determined in a more just, speedy,
and inexpensive manner, by entertaining the present Petition.
We now proceed to the merits of the case.
There are two divergent RTC Decisions: one for conviction, and
another for acquittal. Our resolution of this Petition for Review
hinges on the validity of the second RTC Decision.
After review of the case and the records, We rule that the Court
of Appeals, in affirming Judge Soluren's Decision of acquittal,
committed reversible error, which can be remedied by granting
this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Judge Buted's Decision convicting
respondent was validly promulgated.
Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
allows a court to promulgate a judgment in absentia and gives
the accused the opportunity to file an appeal within a period of
fifteen (15) days from notice to the latter or the latter's counsel;
otherwise, the decision becomes final.
Records show that respondent was properly informed of the
promulgation scheduled on 15 December 2005. The RTC Order
dated 30 November 2005[44] documents the presence of his
counsel during the hearing. It is an established doctrine that
notice to counsel is notice to client.[45] In addition, the Return of
Service states that the Order and Notice of Promulgation were
personally delivered to respondent's address.
During the promulgation of judgment on 15 December 2005,
when respondent did not appear despite notice, and without
offering any justification for his absence, the trial court should
have