Case Digest (G.R. No. 102485)
Facts:
In People of the Philippines v. Tampal et al., an Information dated August 17, 1990 was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del Norte (Branch XI) charging Luis Tampal, Domingo Padumon, Arsenio Padumon, Samuel Padumon, Pablito Suco, Dario Suco and Gavino Cadling (at large) with Robbery with Homicide and Multiple Physical Serious Injuries (Criminal Case No. S-1902), raffled to Judge Wilfredo C. Ochotorena. Only the four Padumon brothers and Tampal were arrested; the others remained at large. Upon arraignment on May 17, 1991, the private respondents pleaded not guilty. The trial was set for July 26, 1991 but was postponed at the prosecution’s request due to inability to contact material witnesses—an application unopposed by the defense—and reset for September 20, 1991. On that date, the prosecutor failed to appear because the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office was closed in observance of the Muslim legal holiday “Mauluddin Nabi” (Birthday of Prophet Mohammad SAW) pursuant toCase Digest (G.R. No. 102485)
Facts:
- Charge and Arraignment
- Information dated August 17, 1990 charging Luis Tampal, Domingo Padumon, Arsenio Padumon, Samuel Padumon, Pablito Suco, Dario Suco, and Gavino Cadling with robbery with homicide and multiple serious physical injuries (Criminal Case No. S-1902).
- Only the first four accused were arrested; the others remained at large.
- Arraigned on May 17, 1991 before RTC Branch XI, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte; all pleaded not guilty.
- Trial Postponements and Dismissal
- July 26, 1991 hearing: Assistant Provincial Prosecutor moved to postpone for failure to contact material witnesses; defense counsel did not object. Case reset to September 20, 1991.
- September 20, 1991 hearing: prosecutor absent; judge dismissed the case for failure to prosecute under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, deeming the absence unjustified.
- Motion for Reconsideration and Subsequent Orders
- Prosecution explained absence due to closure of the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office for Mauluddin Nabi (Birthday of Prophet Mohammad), a Muslim legal holiday, pleading valid cause.
- On October 4, 1991, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration, holding that dismissal operated as an acquittal barring reinstatement by double jeopardy.
- Petition for Certiorari
- Solicitor General filed for certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing the dismissal was without or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion, and that reinstatement would not offend double jeopardy.
- Respondent judge maintained dismissal was justified under the accused’s right to speedy trial and the prohibition against double jeopardy.
Issues:
- Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal case for failure to prosecute despite the prosecutor’s valid excuse.
- Whether reinstating the case would violate the private respondents’ protection against double jeopardy.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)