Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > September 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5469 September 25, 1953 - AIDA F. PENDATUN v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

093 Phil 798:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5469. September 25, 1953.]

AIDA F. PENDATUN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. HON. CRISANTO ARAGON and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents-Appellees.

Dominador M. Tan for Appellant.

First Assistant Solicitor General Ruperto Kapunan, Jr. and Solicitor Felix V. Makasiar for Appellees.

Augusto Revilla as private prosecutor.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; DISMISSAL AFTER PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; AN INSTANCE OF EXPRESS CONSENT. — The notation "No objection" signed by counsel for the accused at the bottom of the

prosecution’s motion to dismiss constituted an express consent within the meaning of section 9 of Rule 113. It was the same as saying "I agree" although it was not as emphatic as the latter expression.


D E C I S I O N


TUASON, J.:


Criminal cases Nos. IV-42616 and IV-42617 of the Municipal Court of Manila for physical injuries and slander respectively against Aida F. Pendatun were "provisionally" dismissed on motion of the private attorney for the complaining witness on account of the latter being ill. At the bottom of the motion, counsel for defendant (defendant had never appeared in person and had always been represented by counsel) wrote the words "no objection" and signed his name below it. The Assistant City Fiscal did the same.

A motion later having been made to reinstate the said cases, defendant objected on the ground of twice in jeopardy, but was overruled. Application for prohibition was thereupon filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila to prevent the respondent judge, Hon. Crisanto Aragon, from placing the defendant on trial. Judge Ibañez denied the application.

This is an appeal from that decision directly raising the question whether counsel’s notation on the motion to dismiss constituted an express consent within the meaning of section 9 of Rule 113, which provides that when a criminal case is dismissed or otherwise is terminated without the express consent of the defendant after the latter has pleaded to the charge, such dismissal shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged.

The words "no objection" written on the motion to dismiss directly conveyed, as undoubtedly they were intended to convey, the idea of full accordance with the proposed dismissal. It was not the same as acquiescence manifested by signs, actions, facts, inaction or silence. It was the same as saying "I agree" although it was not as emphatic as the latter expression. Having manifested "no objection" to the motion for the express purpose of obtaining a ruling of the court upon such motion, counsel could not have meant other than that he was in agreement with the dismissal, and there is no question that that was what the court and the prosecution understood him to mean; otherwise, trial could have been postponed instead of the case being temporarily dismissed, there being good grounds for continuance.

Upon the foregoing considerations, the decision of the trial court is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4860 September 8, 1953 - ENCARNACION E. VDA. DE FERNANDO, ET AL. v. MAGDALENA F. GALLARDO

    093 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. L-5269 September 8, 1953 - ENRIQUE AL. CAPISTRANO v. FEDERICO CARIÑO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 710

  • G.R. No. L-5284 September 11, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ABESAMIS

    093 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-5451 September 14, 1953 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR

    093 Phil 715

  • G.R. Nos. L-4505 & L-5228 September 15, 1953 - YSIDRA COJUANGCO v. MANUEL ERNESTO GONZALES

    093 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. L-4005 September 16, 1953 - JUAN S. RUSTIA, ET AL. v. AGUINALDO & AGUINALDO

    093 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. L-5458 September 16, 1953 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    093 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. L-6756 September 16, 1953 - NICOLAS Y. FELICIANO, ET AL. v. ARSENIO LUGAY, ET AL.

    093 Phil 744

  • G.R. Nos. L-5664 & L-5698 September 17, 1953 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. L-5023 September 18, 1953 - LUIS F. JOSE v. CONSOLIDATED INVESTMENTS INC., ET ,AL.

    093 Phil 752

  • G.R. No. L-5820 September 18, 1953 - ROSARIO MATUTE v. HIGINO MACADAEG, ET AL.

    093 Phil 761

  • G.R. No. L-4080 September 21, 1953 - JOSE R. MARTINEZ v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    093 Phil 765

  • G.R. No. L-5189 September 21, 1953 - GAUDENCIO SERRANO v. DONATA CABRERA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 774

  • G.R. No. L-4669 September 22, 1953 - BENJAMIN ASTUDILLO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO ASTUDILLO

    093 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-4942 September 23, 1953 - NIEVES DURAN EMBATE v. RAFAEL F. PENOLIO

    093 Phil 782

  • G.R. No. L-5856 September 23, 1953 - MARCELINO A. BUSACAY v. ANTONIO F. BUENAVENTURA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-4972 September 25, 1953 - SATURNINO MOLDERO, ET AL. v. SATURNINO MOLDERO

    093 Phil 792

  • G.R. No. L-5469 September 25, 1953 - AIDA F. PENDATUN v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

    093 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-5536 September 25, 1953 - LAUREANA TORIO v. NICANOR ROSARIO

    093 Phil 800

  • G.R. No. L-6050 September 25, 1953 - NARCISO BAGTAS v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    093 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-535 September 28, 1953 - RUTH GREY v. INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY

    093 Phil 807

  • G.R. No. L-5763 September 28, 1953 - EUGENIO AQUINO v. EULOGIO F. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. L-1411 September 29, 1953 - DIONISIO RELLOSA v. GAW CHEE HUN

    093 Phil 827

  • G.R. No. 3007 September 29, 1953 - PILAR BAUTISTA, ETC., ET AL. v. HILARIA UY ISABELO, ETC.

    093 Phil 843

  • G.R. No. L-3529 September 29, 1953 - APOLINAR TALENTO, ET AL. v. EIGERO MAKIKI, ET AL.

    093 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. L-4068 September 29, 1953 - BERNABE B. CAOILE v. YU CHIAO PENG

    093 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. L-5040 September 29, 1953 - BASILISA ZAFRA VDA. DE ANCIANO v. FAUSTINA CABALLES

    093 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-5438 September 29, 1953 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. VICENTE VARELA

    093 Phil 878

  • G.R. No. L-5516 September 29, 1953 - FAUSTO COTIA v. POTENCIANO PECSON, ET AL.

    093 Phil 881

  • G.R. No. L-4130 September 30, 1953 - YSABEL B.DE PADILLA v. CONCEPCION PATERNO

    093 Phil 884

  • G.R. Nos. L-4792-95 September 30, 1953 - ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC. v. AMPARO EXCONDE

    093 Phil 894