Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1955 > May 1955 Decisions > G.R. No. L-7862 May 17, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. MAXIMO ABAÑO

097 Phil 28:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-7862. May 17, 1955.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. MAXIMO ABAÑO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Et Al., Respondents.

Albino L. Figueroa, Gelasio L. Dimaano and Consolacion L. Rivas-Abejuro for Petitioner.

Francisco M. Ramos for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. CERTIORARI ABUSE OF DISCRETION AS GROUND; DENIAL OF MOTION FOR CONTINUATION. — Where, on repeated motions of the prosecution, the judge continued the trial three times, and on lest day set for the resumption thereof the prosecution failed to secure the continuance thereof and could not produce further evidence because of the absence of the complaining witness, the judge was justified in dismissing the case upon motion of the defense, and no abuse of discretion was committed, considering that defendant was entitled to a speedy trial.

2. ID.; ID. .; ID.; — Even if the denial of a motion for continuance be deemed an error, still it does not amount to a grave abuse of discretion.

3. JURISDICTION; ORDERS; JUDGMENT; EFFECT OF ERROR IN INTERLOCUTORY RULINGS OR IN DECISION. — An error committed by a competent court in ruling on interlocutory or incidental matters or in deciding a case does not divest it of its jurisdiction; neither does such an error render the ruling or judgment null and void.

4. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; DOUBLE JEOPARDY; EFFECT OF ANNULMENT OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL. — Where the defendant has been placed in jeopardy of punishment for the offense charged in the information, the annulment or setting aside of the order of dismissal would place him twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


An information charging Zacarias Suñga with attempted rape was filed in the court of first Instance of Pampanga (Crim. Case No. 1831). At the trial of the defendant held on 26 and 27 May 1954 two witnesses for the prosecution testified. The trial was continued and the resumption thereof was set for 1 June. On 31 May the assistant provincial fiscal filed a petition for continuance of the trial for the reason that Atanacia L. Mallare, the complaining witness, was suffering from chololelithiasis and right ureterolithiasis and confined in the Mary Chiles Hospital in Manila. A verified medical certificate issued by Dr. Martin Santos, the attending physician, was attached to the petition. Before acting on the petition for continuance the respondent judge inquired from the Director of the Provincial Hospital of Pampanga about the ailment from which the complainant claimed she was suffering, and directed the clerk of court to call up the Director of the Mary Chiles Hospital in Manila by long distance telephone to find out whether the complaining witness was really confined there. The clerk reported that she was. In spite of the objection of the assistant provincial fiscal to an early resumption of the trial because of the inability of the complainant to leave the hospital before two or three weeks, as stated in the attending physician’s affidavit (Annex B-1), the resumption of the trial was set for 12 June. On 11 June the assistant provincial fiscal moved for continuance of the trial because the complainant was still sick and confined in the Sacred Heart Hospital in Manila. The resumption of the trial was set for 15 June. On this day the private prosecutor moved for continuance of the trial because of complainant’s sickness and confinement in the hospital. The motion was denied and because of the inability of the prosecution to produce further evidence, counsel for the defense moved for the dismissal of the case. Before the end of the trial on that day the prosecution announced its intention to file a petition for a writ of certiorari and injunction in this Court. After the respondent judge had reserved his resolution on the motion to dismiss, on that same day he dismissed the case.

The prosecution filed this petition to annul and set aside the order of the respondent judge which denied the motion for continuance of the trial on the ground that it was a grave abuse of discretion.

After a perusal of the documents attached to the petition for a writ of certiorari, we fail to find an abuse of discretion committed by the respondent judge. He took pains to inquire about the nature of the ailment from which the complaining witness claimed she was suffering. He continued the trial three times, to wit: on 27 May, 1 and 12 June. The defendant was entitled to a speedy trial. When on 15 June, the last day set for the resumption of the trial, the prosecution failed to secure the continuance thereof and could not produce further evidence because of the absence of the complaining witness, the respondent judge was justified in dismissing the case upon motion of the defense. Even if the denial of the motion for continuance be deemed an error, still it does not amount to a grave abuse of discretion. An error committed by a competent court in ruling on interlocutory or incidental matters or in deciding a case does not divest it of its jurisdiction. Neither does such an error render the ruling or judgment null and void. The defendant was placed in jeopardy of punishment for the offense charged in the information and the annulment or setting aside of the order of dismissal would place him twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied and the writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the respondent judge from further proceeding with the trial of the defendant issued ten days after the order of dismissal of the case had been entered is dissolved. No costs shall be taxed.

Bengzon, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1955 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7331 May 6, 1955 - CLEMENTE PASILAN v. FRANCISCO VILLAGONZA

    097 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-7616 May 10, 1955 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTORIO HERNANDEZ

    097 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. L-7684 May 10, 1955 - AGRIPINO JOCSON v. ESPERIDION PRESBITERIO

    097 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. L-7516 May 12, 1955 - LEONOR P. REYES v. THE HONORABLE BONIFACIO YSIP

    097 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-8045 May 12, 1955 - VALENTINO TAYLO Y REYES v. TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES

    097 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-6963 May 13, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS PADIOS and FILEMON PADIOS

    097 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. L-7574 May 17, 1955 - FRANCISCO EPANG v. MARIA ORTIN DE LEYCO

    097 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-7862 May 17, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. MAXIMO ABAÑO

    097 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-7894 May 17, 1955 - FERNANDO NIETO v. HON. BONIFACIO YSIP

    097 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. L-8276 May 17, 1955 - JOSE B. GAMBOA v. HON. JOSE TEODORO

    097 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-7937 May 18, 1955 - JUANITA RONQUILLO v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    097 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. L-7083 May 19, 1955 - JUAN EUGENIO ET AL. v. SILVINA PERDIDO

    097 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-7307 May 19, 1955 - PACITA ORTIZ v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

    097 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-7385 May 19, 1955 - QUIRICO L. SATURNINO v. FELIZA LUZ PAULINO

    097 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. L-6776 May 21, 1955 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL v. UNG SIU SI TEMPLE

    097 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-7112 May 21, 1955 - TOMAS Q. SORIANO v. F. R. OMILA

    097 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-7234 May 21, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAZ M. DEL ROSARIO

    097 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. L-7595 May 21, 1955 - TEODORA DEMORAR v. HON. JUDGE ROMAN IBAÑEZ ET AL.

    097 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-7926 May 21, 1955 - OSCAR OLEGARIO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    097 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. L-7583 May 25, 1955 - JAMIE T. BUENAFLOR ET AL. v. CESARIO DE LEON

    097 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-7918 May 25, 1955 - MARIA GALASINAO v. ROSA M. AUSTRIA ET AL.

    097 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-8114 May 25, 1955 - HAWAIIAN-PHIL. CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

    097 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-8238 May 25, 1955 - CESAR M. CARANDANG v. VICENTE SANTIAGO

    097 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-8806 May 25, 1955 - MARIA N. BANZON v. PEDRO ALVIAR

    097 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-6869 May 27, 1955 - SOLEDAD BELANDRES v. LOPEZ SUGAR CENTRAL MILL CO., INC.

    097 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-7224 May 27, 1955 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO. v. A. GERGARAY TANCHINGCO

    097 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. L-7383 May 27, 1955 - XERXES G. GARCIA v. DAMIANA SANTICO

    097 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. L-7518 May 27, 1955 - ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC. v. HON. MODESTO CASTILLO ET AL.

    097 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. L-7622 May 27, 1955 - GABRIEL MACLAN v. RUBEN GARCIA

    097 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-7752 May 27, 1955 - SEC. OF AGRI. AND NAT. RESOURCES, ET AL. v. HON. JUDGE, CFI OF MLA., ET AL.

    097 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-7248 May 28, 1955 - AMADO BERNARDO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    097 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-8040 May 28, 1955 - VICENTE K. LAY v. ROCES HERMANOS INC., ET AL.

    097 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-7708 May 30, 1955 - JOSE MONDANO v. FERNANDO SILVOSA, ET AL.

    097 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. L-7738 May 30, 1955 - BALDOMERO TACAD, ET AL. v. POTENCIANA VDA. DE CEBRERO

    097 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-7959 May 30, 1955 - PRICE STABILIZATION CORP., v. JUDGE OF CFI, ET AL.

    097 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. L-6707 May 31, 1955 - R. F. & J. ALEXANDER & CO., LTD., ET AL. v. JOSE ANG, ET AL.

    097 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-7019 May 31, 1955 - IN RE: EULOGIO S. EUSEBIO v. DOMINGO VALMORES

    097 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-7144 May 31, 1955 - FAR EASTERN EXPORT & IMPORT CO. v. LIM TECK SUAN

    097 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-7338 May 31, 1955 - PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC., v. PHIL. MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS ASSN.

    097 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. L-7358 May 31, 1955 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. AGUINALDO’S ECHAGUE, INC.

    097 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-7376 May 31, 1955 - FRANCISCO MARIANO v. APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    097 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-7614 May 31, 1955 - CONRADO POTENCIANO v. NAPOLEON DINEROS, ET AL.

    097 Phil 196

  • G.R. Nos. L-7771-73 May 31, 1955 - PHIL. MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS’ ASSN. v. PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC.

    097 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-7887 May 31, 1955 - MACLEOD & CO. OF THE PHIL. v. PROGRESSIVE FEDERATION OF LABOR

    097 Phil 205