Case Digest (G.R. No. 211933)
Facts:
Roberta S. Saldariega v. Hon. Elvira D.C. Panganiban, Presiding Judge, Branch 227, Regional Trial Court, National Capital Region, Quezon City and People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 211933 & 211960, April 15, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Roberta S. Saldariega was charged by the Office of the City Prosecutor, Quezon City, on November 8, 2011 with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), docketed as Criminal Case Nos. Q-11-173055 and Q-11-173056, which were raffled to Branch 227, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, presided by respondent Judge Elvira D.C. Panganiban.
During the criminal proceedings, the prosecution’s principal witness, PO2 Nelson Villas, and another arresting officer, PO3 Rionaldo Sabulaan, repeatedly failed to appear for scheduled hearings (notably hearings set October 22 and 25, 2012). The Forensic Chemist testified on September 13, 2012, but had no personal knowledge of the arrest circumstances. At a May 16, 2013 hearing the trial court, with the express consent of the accused and her counsel and without objection from the public prosecutor, issued an order provisionally dismissing the cases.
On June 5, 2013, PO2 Villas filed a Motion to Re-open, explaining his non-appearance by reason of family deaths and noting PO3 Sabulaan’s transfer of station that may have prevented proper service of subpoena. In an Order dated June 14, 2013 the trial court granted the motion and set the cases for continuation of hearing. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing the provisional dismissal amounted to an acquittal and that Villas lacked personality to move for revival; the trial court denied reconsideration on February 18, 2014.
Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 on April 21, 2014, assailing the trial court’s orders as tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court required respondents to comment; the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Comment maintaining the trial court did not commit grave abuse and noting petitioner did not expressly object to the motion to revive. The petition raised five issues framed around the propriety and consequences of reopening the provisionally dismissed cases and alleged waiver under A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC.
Issues:
- Can witness PO2 Nelson Villas file a motion to reopen a provisionally dismissed case without the participation of a public prosecutor?
- Does the Branch Clerk of Court have the right to receive a motion to re-open that lacks a notice of hearing and proof of service on the other party?
- Did the respondent judge have the authority to grant the motion to re-open?
- Does provisional dismissal of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-11-173055-56 with the consent of the accused equate to an acquittal so that revival would violate double jeopardy?
- Did the absence of PO2 Nelson Villas for four consecutive hearings constitute a waiver under A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)