Case Digest (G.R. No. 205952)
Facts:
This case involves Atty. Segundo B. Bonsubre, Jr. (petitioner) as the complainant against respondents Erwin Yerro, Erico Yerro, and Ritchie Yerro. The events leading to this case began with a criminal complaint for estafa filed by the petitioner against the respondents before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, which was docketed as Crim. Case No. CBU-51009. During the proceedings, the private prosecutor, Atty. Norberto Luna, Jr., indicated that a settlement was being negotiated between the parties and that a motion would be filed accordingly. The RTC, in an Order dated September 12, 2000, granted the prosecution ten days to submit the necessary motion and directed that the respondents' counsel be furnished a copy for comment. However, despite reaching a Compromise Agreement regarding the civil aspect of the case, the prosecution failed to submit the required motion or inform the RTC, leading to the dismissal of the case on September 18, 2001, due to the prosecut...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 205952)
Facts:
- Initiation of the Case: The case originated from a criminal complaint for estafa filed by petitioner Atty. Segundo B. Bonsubre, Jr. against respondents Erwin Yerro, Erico Yerro, and Ritchie Yerro before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, docketed as Crim. Case No. CBU-51009.
- Settlement Attempts: During the proceedings, the private prosecutor, Atty. Norberto Luna, Jr., informed the court of an ongoing settlement between the parties. The court directed the prosecution to submit a motion regarding the settlement within 10 days, but no such motion was filed.
- Compromise Agreement: A Compromise Agreement was reached between the parties regarding the civil aspect of the case. However, the prosecution failed to submit the agreement to the court or file the required motion.
- Dismissal of the Case: Due to the prosecution's failure to comply with the court's directive and prosecute the case, the RTC dismissed the case on September 18, 2001, citing the respondents' constitutional right to a speedy trial.
- Motion for Reconsideration: Over two years later, on June 15, 2004, petitioner, through a new collaborating counsel, Atty. Bernarditto M. Malabago, filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming he only learned of the dismissal on June 7, 2004. The RTC denied the motion, stating the dismissal had become final and executory.
- Notice of Appeal: Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, which the RTC denied with respect to the criminal aspect of the case but allowed for the civil aspect.
- Certiorari Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying his notice of appeal. The CA dismissed the petition, upholding the RTC's ruling.
Issue:
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the CA erred in upholding the RTC's denial of due course to petitioner's notice of appeal concerning the criminal aspect of the case.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA's decision. The Court held that:
- The September 18, 2001 dismissal order, grounded on the respondents' right to a speedy trial, was a final order that could not be appealed.
- The dismissal had the effect of acquittal, barring further prosecution of the respondents for the same offense.
- Petitioner failed to prove that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case.
- The delay in prosecuting the case was attributable to petitioner and his counsel, who failed to comply with court directives and submit the Compromise Agreement.
- Petitioner's claim of lack of due process was unfounded, as he had the opportunity to be heard but failed to act.
- The provisional dismissal of the case, as per the Compromise Agreement, did not meet the legal requirements under Section 8, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.
Ratio:
- (Unlock)