Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9385)
Facts:
Juan C. Dimson v. Honorable Artemio Elepano, G.R. No. L-9385, August 16, 1956, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.
On March 15, 1954, Juan C. Dimson (petitioner/appellant) was charged before the Justice of the Peace Court of Calauan, Laguna with light threats (Criminal Case No. 113). After trial, the justice of the peace rendered a judgment on June 2, 1954 finding Dimson guilty and sentencing him to pay a fine of P50 and costs; the court on the same date issued a notice that judgment would be promulgated on June 19, 1954, but that notice was returned unserved because Dimson could not be located at his residence in Barrio Dayap.
The justice again attempted service on June 26, 1954 by issuing a notice setting promulgation for July 10, 1954; that notice likewise was returned unserved. On July 17, 1954 the justice sent a copy of the decision by registered mail to Dimson’s attorneys and to the provincial fiscal; those copies were received on July 20 and July 19, 1954 respectively. On October 6, 1954 the justice issued a notice to Dimson’s bondsmen to produce the accused in court on October 23, 1954 “for the promulgation of the judgment.”
Instead of personally appearing on October 23, Dimson, through counsel, filed an “Omnibus Motion” asserting that the delay in promulgation violated his right to a speedy trial and sought dismissal. The justice denied the motion on October 30, 1954, ruling that the decision had been promulgated when Dimson’s counsel received a copy on July 20, 1954 and that the judgment had become final and executory; the justice then again asked the bondsmen to produce Dimson for execution of sentence.
On November 29, 1954 Dimson, through counsel, filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Laguna, challenging the justice’s acts and seeking annulment of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 113. The justice answered, explaining that the delay in promulgation was caused by Dimson’s continued absence from his residence, that service on counsel was sufficient, and that the bondsmen notice was intended for execution rather than promulgation. The Court of First Instance held that service on counsel was not equivalent to promulgatio...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was service of a copy of the decision on the defendant’s counsel equivalent to promulgation of judgment in a light offense case?
- Did the delay in promulgation exceeding ninety days deprive the justice of the peace court of jurisdiction to act fur...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)