Case Digest (G.R. No. 145945)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Victor Subida, G.R. No. 145945, June 27, 2006, Supreme Court First Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.The respondent, Victor C. Subida, was charged by Informations dated September 8, 1995 with one count of illegal possession of ammunition (Criminal Case No. 108742) and two counts of frustrated homicide (Criminal Case Nos. 108743–44). Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution rested on March 17, 1999 and the trial court set subsequent dates for the defense to present evidence.
During the defense stage the trial proceeded erratically: settings on March 25, April 7 and April 22, 1999 were affected by the judge’s illness and counsel’s illness; the respondent himself testified on April 22 and completed his testimony that day. Further settings on May 5 and May 12, 1999 involved planned witnesses who failed to appear; the trial was reset to May 12, 1999 and later to May 27 and June 3, 1999 because of the prosecutor’s indisposition. On May 27, 1999 the counsel of record, Atty. Larry T. Iguidez, failed to appear (no medical certificate was presented), and the RTC (Pasig City, Branch 158) construed that failure as a waiver by the accused; it ordered that the accused “was considered to have rested his case and that the cases were deemed submitted for decision.”
Atty. Iguidez withdrew on June 8, 1999; new counsel (the Tan Acut & Madrid firm) entered on June 16 and filed a motion for reconsideration supported by affidavits of proposed witnesses. The trial court denied the motion on July 15, 1999. The accused petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari and prohibition, alleging that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by depriving him of his constitutional right to be heard and to present evidence.
The CA (decision penned by Associate Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero, retired; Sabio, Jr. and Delos Santos, JJ., concurring) granted the petition, set aside the RTC’s May 27 and July 15, 1999 orders, and ordered the trial court to proceed with reception of the defense’s additional evidence. The People filed a petition for review on certiorari in this Court (Rule 45), arguing that the CA erred because the absences manifested dilato...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by declaring that respondent waived his right to present further evidence and deeming the case submitted for decision?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly nullify the RTC orders in light of the Speedy Trial Act (R.A. No. 8493) and Supreme Court Circular No. 38-98 (incorporated in Rule 119, Sec....(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)