Case Digest (G.R. No. 253649)
Facts:
Marites Aytona v. Jaime Paule, G.R. No. 253649, November 28, 2022, the Supreme Court Third Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Marites Aytona (Aytona); respondent is Jaime Paule (Paule).On February 15, 2010, two Informations for perjury were filed against Aytona (Criminal Case Nos. M-PSY-10-11344-CR and M-PSY-10-11345-CR) and raffled to Branch 44 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City (MeTC). Trial settings were repeatedly reset from the initial trial date in 2010 and, despite intermittent proceedings (including partial direct examination of the private complainant on March 30, 2011), the prosecution never completed presentation of its evidence even after more than five years. The MeTC repeatedly ordered the prosecution to submit judicial affidavits of the complainant and witnesses; the prosecution failed to comply for almost three years. On June 24, 2015, Aytona filed a "Motion to Dismiss (For Failure to Prosecute Case with a Reasonable Length of Time)."
On August 1, 2016, the MeTC granted Aytona’s motion and dismissed the cases for violation of her right to speedy trial, striking off the private complainant’s direct testimony and ordering release of bond. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied on December 4, 2017. Aggrieved, Paule — the private complainant — filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasay City (SCA Case No. R-PSY-18-29643-CV), seeking to set aside the MeTC’s dismissal.
In a Decision dated January 27, 2019, the RTC granted the petition for certiorari, set aside the MeTC Orders dated August 1, 2016 and December 4, 2017, and directed the MeTC to continue proceedings and reinstate Paule’s direct testimony. The RTC reasoned that (a) Aytona’s motion to dismiss was set for hearing beyond the 10-day period prescribed in Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court and thus was a "mere scrap of paper" the MeTC should not have acted upon; and (b) there was no violation of the right to speedy trial because delays were attributable to factors such as judicial vacancies, absences of parties and counsel, and Aytona’s own conduct, and because Aytona allegedly failed to assert the right seasonably.
Aytona sought reconsideration before the RTC, which was denied on April 29, 2019, and she appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On June 17, 2019 the CA directed the parties to file memoranda within a non-extendible period of 30 days; neither party filed. The CA then dismissed Aytona’s appeal for failure to file the required memorandum under Rule 50, Section 1(e) of the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing Aytona’s appeal for her failure to file the required memorandum?
- Did the Regional Trial Court err in granting Paule’s petition for certiorari and reinstating the criminal cases a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)