Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28104-05)
Facts:
Bienvenido O. Marcos, G.R. Nos. 70746-47, September 01, 1992, the Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Acting 2nd Assistant City Fiscal Lorenzo A. Lopena filed two informations on 2 August 1984 in the Regional Trial Court (Branch II), Bohol, charging petitioner with violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing two dishonored checks dated 5 July 1983. The cases were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 3890 and 3892. Petitioner posted a surety bond and was released pending trial.
On 3 November 1984 the private complainant, Fulgencia Oculam, executed an Affidavit of Desistance; on 12 November 1984 the prosecuting fiscal filed a Motion to Dismiss in Criminal Case No. 3892 attaching that affidavit. Arraignment was initially set for 12 November 1984 but was reset several times; on 7 February 1985 the petitioner appeared, and the trial court arraigned him and set joint trial dates of 8 and 9 April 1985. The stenographic notes show the prosecution orally withdrew its motion to dismiss on 7 February 1985 and the court proceeded to arraign the accused, although the court did not make an explicit written ruling on the oral withdrawal.
When the cases were called on 8 April 1985 neither petitioner nor his counsel appeared. The prosecution presented its evidence ex parte and rested. The trial court issued an Order forfeiting petitioner’s bond, directed the bondsman to show cause within thirty days why judgment should not be entered against the bond, and declared the cases submitted for decision. Petitioner’s counsel had earlier sent, by registered mail dated 29 March 1985, an “urgent motion for resetting” (which lacked a notice of hearing directed to the prosecution); a motion for reconsideration was filed 23 April 1985 and denied by the trial court on 29 April 1985. A Notice of Promulgation dated 3 May 1985 set judgment for 17 May 1985.
Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 on 14 May 1985, contending denial of his right to confront witnesses and to be heard because the trial court (1) arraigned the accused and received the prosecution’s evidence without resolving the Motion to Dismiss; (2) forfeited his bond and treated his failure to appear as a waiver of his right to present evi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in arraigning the accused and receiving the prosecution’s evidence without first resolving the Motion to Dismiss?
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering forfeiture of the bail bond, allowing the prosecution to present evidence ex parte, and declaring that petitioner waived his right to present evidence?
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration of its Order and in s...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)