G.R. No. 140863 - Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. vs. How

On May 28, 1999, the City Prosecutor of Parañaque filed an Information for estafa against Ma. Fe Barreiro based on a complaint by Solar Team Entertainment, Inc.
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 99-536 under the title “People of the Philippines vs. Ma. Fe F. Barreiro” in the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 257, presided over by Judge Rolando G. How.

Prior to the scheduled arraignment on August 5, 1999, the trial court issued an Order dated June 29, 1999, resetting the arraignment to September 2, 1999 because private respondent had filed an appeal with the Department of Justice (DOJ).
In the same Order, private respondent manifested her intent to submit a certification from the DOJ, which would confirm due course for her appeal before the rescheduled arraignment.

On September 24, 1999, the trial court issued an Order denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the previous resetting order and rescheduled the arraignment to November 18, 1999.
On November 10, 1999, private respondent filed a “Motion to Defer Arraignment.”
On November 15, 1999, before the scheduled arraignment date and even before a hearing on the said motion, the trial court issued an Order further deferring the arraignment indefinitely until the pending appeal with the Secretary of Justice (SOJ) was resolved.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration of this deferment order was denied by the trial court on November 22, 1999.

Petitioner complained that despite six months having elapsed since the filing of the Information, private respondent’s arraignment had not been conducted.
It was alleged that due process was violated as petitioner did not receive a copy of private respondent’s Motion to Defer Arraignment nor was there a hearing for the motion.
Petitioner argued that the trial court violated Section 7 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 (Republic Act No. 8493) and Section 12, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by indefinitely suspending the arraignment.
Petitioner further maintained that the matter raises a pure question of law of first impression, given the recent enactment of the Speedy Trial Act, and asserted that the appeal review by the SOJ should be given priority within the mandated thirty (30) day period.

Whether the trial court erred in indefinitely suspending the arraignment of the accused despite the mandatory time limit of thirty (30) days provided under Section 7 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1998.
Whether the trial court violated Section 12, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by deferring the arraignment on grounds not limited to the provision’s enumerated circumstances.