Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Goyala Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 224650
Decision Date
Jul 15, 2020
A minor accused respondent of statutory rape; after procedural delays, the Supreme Court ruled the 60-day suspension period mandatory, reinstating trial court orders.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224650)

Overview of Proceedings

This appeal by certiorari is directed against the Decision and Resolution of the CA that reversed earlier Orders issued by the RTC regarding Criminal Case No. 152682, wherein Goyala, Jr. faced charges of statutory rape. The CA ordered a halt to proceedings, revocation of the arrest warrant, and remittance of the case to the prosecution to complete the preliminary investigation.

Antecedent Facts

A minor, referred to as AAA, accused Goyala, Jr. of statutory rape, leading to a sworn statement filed with the police. The complaint was transferred to the Office of the City Prosecutor in Pasig City, resulting in a preliminary investigation. Goyala, Jr. presented a counter-affidavit and subsequently initiated a civil action against AAA and her mother, seeking to suspend the criminal proceedings based on a claim of a prejudicial question. Following the prosecutor's determination of probable cause, Goyala, Jr. experienced several motions to defer proceedings, all of which were denied by the RTC.

Judgment of the Trial Court

The RTC, in its February 13, 2014 Order, denied Goyala, Jr.'s motion for a suspension of proceedings. The court asserted its exclusive jurisdiction over the case post-filing, indicating that issues surrounding preliminary investigations do not impede the court's authority to proceed once the information is lodged. The court's findings led to the issuance of a warrant for arrest. After subsequent motions from Goyala, Jr., both of which were denied, he sought relief from the CA.

Judgment of the Court of Appeals

The CA concluded that Goyala, Jr. was deprived of a complete preliminary investigation. It cited precedents asserting that the right to a full investigation includes the opportunity to pursue a motion for reconsideration of the prosecutor’s findings. The CA therefore issued an order to remand the case back to the Office of the City Prosecutor and to hold proceedings in abeyance until the preliminary investigation was finalized, alongside revocation of the arrest warrant.

Arguments of the Parties

The petitioner contended that the RTC acted within its jurisdiction when it denied Goyala, Jr.'s motion to suspend proceedings, emphasizing that the case facts differed significantly from those in cited precedential cases (Torralba and Castro). It stressed that Goyala, Jr. had been afforded ample opportunity to contest the findings against him.

In contrast, the respondent asserted that the preliminary investigation was incomplete as he had an ongoing appeal with the Department of Justice against the prosecutor's findings, positing that the lapse of the 60-day period for the motion for suspension should be considered invalid due to delays caused by the petitioner.

Ruling of the Court

The Supreme Court rul

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.