Case Digest (G.R. No. 108000)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108000, June 17, 1993, the Supreme Court En Banc, Romero, J., writing for the Court. The petition assails a decision of the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 28933) dated October 23, 1992 that annulled the trial court's order discharging accused Nonilo Arile so he could testify as a state witness in Criminal Case No. 94159 (People v. Arile et al.) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig, Branch 67 (presided by Judge Apolinario B. Santos).An information for kidnapping for ransom (Art. 267, RPC) was filed August 21, 1992 charging several persons including private respondent Chief Inspector Jose T. Pring. The prosecution moved on August 28, 1992 to discharge accused Arile as a state witness and set a hearing for September 4, 1992. Pring filed a petition for bail (hearing initially set for August 31 and September 2, 1992) and later an opposition to the motion to discharge. On September 4, 1992 the RTC resent the arraignment, pre-trial and bail hearing dates because most accused were absent and the RTC "considered submitted for resolution" the motion to discharge. On September 8, 1992 the RTC issued an order granting the prosecution's motion and discharged Arile, finding the requisites of Section 9, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, were satisfied.
Private respondent Pring filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, arguing the RTC had not conducted the statutorily-mandated "hearing in support of the discharge" before resolving the motion. The Court of Appeals agreed and on October 23, 1992 annulled and set aside the RTC's September 8 order because it found no hearing had been held on the motion to discharge.
The prosecution filed the present petition with the Supreme Court by special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, asking the Court to set aside the CA ruling and reinstate the RTC's discharge order so Arile could testify to oppose Pring's bail and in the criminal trial. The prosecution also sought interlocutory relief; the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on March 30, 1993 enjoining the RTC from resolving or granting Pring's motion for bail pending resolution of the petition. The Solicitor General argued substantial compliance with Section 9, Rule 119 because the prosec...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 a proper mode of elevating the Court of Appeals' decision to the Supreme Court?
- Did the RTC violate Section 9, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, by resolving the prosecution’s motion to discharge accused Arile without conducting a formal hearing i...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)