Case Digest (G.R. No. 128821)
Facts:
People of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, filed a Rule 65 petition to annul the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 97 orders dismissing Criminal Case No. Q-91-17782 for libel against Arnulfo C. Talisic. The scheduled trial for July 29, 1991 was dismissed on the ground that the prosecution was not ready, after the private prosecutor announced the unavailability of the complainant-witness, Atty. Democrito T. Mendoza, who was out of town on official business; the defense had also filed a motion to dismiss alleging defects in the Information.The dismissal was made on July 29, 1991, and the trial court later denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration on November 5, 1991. The Solicitor General argued that the postponement request was timely and justified, and that the accused’s right to speedy trial and double jeopardy were not violated.
Issues:
- Was the dismissal order tainted with grave abuse of discretion for effectively violating the accused’s right to a speedy trial?
- Would reversing the dismissal subject the accused to double jeopardy?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 128821)
Facts:
On or about 10 April 1990, in Quezon City, private respondent Arnulfo C. Talisic was charged in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City with libel for allegedly causing the publication, in the *Sun Star Daily* (based in Cebu City), of an article imputing to Democrito T. Mendoza that he “grabbed” Silot Bay and had it titled in his name and that of his children, thereby dishonoring him and causing damage as may be awarded under the Civil Code. Private respondent entered a plea of not guilty on 3 May 1991. Trial was scheduled for 29 July 1991, but three days earlier private prosecutor Amado A. Caballero filed an urgent motion for postponement, stating that the complainant, Atty. Democrito T. Mendoza, would still be out of town on the scheduled date because he would be in Cebu City to attend a conciliation meeting related to a strike or picket, and that he would be out of the country during August 1991 for matters connected with the International Labor Movement, returning in the first week of September 1991; the motion prayed that the hearing be reset, preferably on 9 or 13 September 1991, at 8:30 a.m. The motion was furnished only to the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. On 26 July 1991, private respondent also filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the facts charged did not constitute an offense, invoking *Kunkle vs. Cablenews-American and Lyons* and alleging that the Information failed to identify the person alluded to and failed to allege that a third person could identify the complainant as the object of the publication; he further claimed he did not write or intend the publication. The Office of the City Prosecutor was duly served with the motion to dismiss. On 29 July 1991, when the case was called for hearing, the private prosecutor manifested in open court that he had filed the urgent motion for postponement and sought cancellation of the hearing because the principal prosecution witness was unavailable; the public prosecutor did not object. Defense counsel manifested the filing of the motion to dismiss. The trial court issued an order dismissing the case on the ground that there was “no showing that the prosecution is ready for this morning scheduled hearing,” ordered the return of the cash bond, and allowed the private prosecutor to file a motion for reconsideration. Private prosecutor moved for reconsideration, arguing that the prosecution did not have opportunity to object to the motion to dismiss because it was served on the day of hearing, and asserting that the absence of the principal witness had a valid basis, certified in writing by the Officer-in-Charge of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board in Cebu. After the trial court issued a schedule for comments and replies, counsel for the accused withdrew and a new counsel entered appearance and filed an opposition to the reconsideration. On 5 November 1991, the trial court denied reconsideration, stating that the reasons raised in the motion for reconsideration were untenable and denying it for lack of merit. The prosecution thus resorted to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, seeking to annul the dismissal orders on the ground that the dismissal deprived the State of due process and that the right to speedy trial was not violated, given the well-founded request for postponement based on the unavailability of the principal witness.Issues:
Was the trial court’s dismissal of Criminal Case No. Q-91-17782 tainted with grave abuse of discretion for denying the prosecution a reasonable postponement and thereby effectively violating the accused’s right to speedy trial, and would annulling the dismissal expose the accused to double jeopardy?Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 128821)
Facts:
- Filing of the libel case and parties
- The Information for libel was filed against private respondent Arnulfo C. Talisic in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
- The offended party alleged in the Information was Democrito T. Mendoza, described as a well-known labor leader in Cebu.
- The petition was filed by the People of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General.
- The respondents were Hon. Oscar L. Leviste, Presiding Judge of RTC Quezon City, Branch 97, and Arnulfo C. Talisic.
- Allegations in the Information (substance of the libel charge)
- The Information alleged that on or about April 10, 1990, in Quezon City, the accused, with malicious intent of impeaching the honesty, virtue, and reputation of Democrito T. Mendoza and with malicious intent of injuring and exposing him to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule, caused the publication in Sun Star Daily, a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines based in Cebu City, of an article containing statements (as italicized) that:
- Liloan Councilor Arnulfo Talisic called the attention of the National Government, especially DENR, to speed up resolution of the “Silot Bay problem.”
- “Silot Bay” was allegedly “grabbed” by an influential labor leader, resulting in deprivation of livelihood of small fishermen.
- “Silot Bay” was allegedly titled in the name of a former Marcos man in connivance with corrupt DENR officials.
- The government was said to have ruled in favor of protesting residents, but reopening was allegedly deferred for unknown reasons.
- The Information alleged that the accused knew the statements were not true and that the publication caused dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon Democrito T. Mendoza, to the damage and prejudice of the offended party, in an amount to be awarded under the Civil Code, “CONTRARY TO LAW.”
- The Information alleged that on or about April 10, 1990, in Quezon City, the accused, with malicious intent of impeaching the honesty, virtue, and reputation of Democrito T. Mendoza and with malicious intent of injuring and exposing him to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule, caused the publication in Sun Star Daily, a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines based in Cebu City, of an article containing statements (as italicized) that:
- Arraignment and plea; first scheduled trial date
- On May 3, 1991, private respondent entered a plea of not guilty.
- Trial of Criminal Case No. Q-91-17782 was scheduled for July 29, 1991.
- Events immediately preceding the scheduled hearing
- Private prosecutor’s urgent motion for postponement; service defect alleged later
- Three days before the scheduled hearing, on July 26, 1991, private prosecutor Amado A. Caballero filed an urgent motion for postponement.
- The ground invoked was that the complainant Atty. Democrito T. Mendoza “would still be out of town during said date” because he would attend to the strike of some workers in firms in Cebu City, and his personal presence was necessary.
- The motion further stated that the witness would be out of the country during August 1991 for an official transaction relative to the International Labor Movement and would return during the first week of September 1991.
- The private prosecutor prayed that the hearing be reset to a later date, preferably September 9 or 13, 1991 at 8:30 a.m.
- A copy of the motion was furnished only to the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.
- Accused’s motion to dismiss based on alleged insufficiency of facts
- On July 26, 1991, private respondent filed a motion to dismiss through Atty. Lorenda Estrella-Amion of the Public Attorneys Office.
- The ground alleged that the facts charged in the Information did not constitute an offense.
- Private respondent invoked Kunkle vs. Cablenews-American and Lyons to argue that it was not sufficient that the offended party recognized himself as the person attacked or defamed; instead, a third person must be able to identify the complainant as the object of the libelous publication.
- Private respondent asserted that the Information did not identify the person allegedly alluded to in the article and did not state that a third person could identify Democrito T. Mendoza as the object.
- Private respondent also stressed that he did not write the article or cause its publication and that he had no intention to publish it.
- Service issues and courtroom manifestations on July 29, 1991
- On July 29, 1991 (the scheduled hearing date), private prosecutor manifested in open court that he had filed an urgent motion for postponement due to the unavailability of the principal prosecution witness.
- The public prosecutor did not object to the postponement.
- The defense manifested that it had filed a motion to dismiss.
- The trial court’s dismissal order on the scheduled hearing date
- The assailed dismissal order and its stated reason
- The RTC Judge issued an order dismissing the case for lack of prosecution readiness.
- The order stated that there was “no showing that the prosecution is ready for this morning scheduled hearing,” taking into account the defense manifestation that it had filed a motion to dismiss dated July 25, 1991.
- The order dismissed Criminal Case No. Q-91-17782 and ordered the return of the accused’s cash bond in the amount of P4,200.00 covered by Official Receipt No. 0498706 S dated March 8, 1991.
- The order allowed, upon motion of the private prosecutor, the accused to file a motion for reconsideration.
- Accused’s motion for reconsideration; asserted service defect
- Private prosecutor filed an urgent motion for reconsideration, alleging that the prosecution had no opportunity to file an objection to the motion to dismiss because it was served only on the day of hearing itself.
- Private prosecutor insisted that the court should have considered as valid the reason for the absence of the principal witness, whose presence in Cebu City was certified by the Officer-in-Charge of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board.
- Proceedings after the dismissal and subsequent orders
- Trial court’s directives on the motion for reconsideration
- On August 7, 1991, the trial court granted the defense five (5) days from notice to file a comment on the motion for reconsideration, with the opposing counsel given five (5) days to file a reply, after which the matter was deemed submitted.
- Changes in couns...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Validity of the dismissal and whether grave abuse of discretion existed
- Whether the RTC dismissal order was tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
- Whether granting the prosecution’s motion for postponement would have violated the accused’s right to a speedy trial.
- Double jeopardy consequences of reversal or reopening
-
...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)