October 1969 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > October 1969 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-25033 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRAULIO PAMITTAN, ET AL.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-25033. October 31, 1969.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRAULIO PAMITTAN, ET AL., Defendants, EDUARDO BANGAYAN RAMON CUNTAPAY and EMILIO BALISI, Defendants-Appellees.
Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and Solicitor Ceferino S. Gaddi, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Alejo Cuntapay for Defendants-Appellees.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DISMISSALS; AN ORDER PROVISIONALLY DISMISSING A CRIMINAL CASE BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF THE OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL TO INFORM THE COURT OF THE RESULT OF THE RE-INVESTIGATION, VOID. — The order of dismissal issued by the trial court, motu propio, without setting the case for trial and without exerting any effort to ascertain whether or not the Fiscal had re-investigated the case is void because at the time it was issued the case-strictly speaking — was not ready for trial and adjudication.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT. — Where the trial had been postponed expressly until "further assignment", it was the duty of the trial court, before it could validly issue the order of dismissal complained of, to fix a date for the trial of the case, with previous notice served upon the parties.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT. — Where the trial had been postponed expressly until "further assignment", it was the duty of the trial court, before it could validly issue the order of dismissal complained of, to fix a date for the trial of the case, with previous notice served upon the parties.
D E C I S I O N
DIZON, J.:
Appeal by the State from (a) an order of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan dated September 13, 1965 dismissing provisionally, motu proprio, Criminal Case No. 2459 (for murder) against Eduardo Bangayan, Ramon Cuntapay and Emilio Balisi because of the failure of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal to inform the Court of the result of the re-investigation of the case it was supposed to make, and (b) from an order of the same Court dated September 16 of the same year denying the State’s motion for reconsideration.
In the aforesaid criminal case Braulio Pamittan, Eduardo Bangayan, Ramon Cuntapay and Emilio Balisi were charged with murder. When the case was called for trial on July 19, 1965 Pamittan withdrew his former plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of homicide, with the consent of the prosecution and, thereafter, the Court sentenced him accordingly. On the same date (July 19, 1965), on motion of the Assistant Provincial Fiscal handling the case, the Court postponed the trial as far as the remaining defendants were concerned "so as to give him (the Assistant Provincial Fiscal) sufficient time to re-investigate the case to decide whether or not he should proceed with the hearing of the case," This was done without objection on the part of the defense, and the postponement was expressly made "until further assignment."cralaw virtua1aw library
On September 13, 1965, however, without setting the case for trial and without exerting any effort to ascertain whether or not the Fiscal had re-investigated the case, the trial court, motu proprio, issued the appealed order provisionally dismissing the case with respect to the remaining defendants Bangayan, Cuntapay and Balisi.
Upon the facts thus disclosed by the record, We are of the opinion, and so hold, that the order of dismissal appealed from is void. At the time it was issued the case — strictly speaking — was not ready for trial and adjudication. The trial having been postponed expressly until "further assignment," it was the duty of the trial court, before it could validly issue the order of dismissal complained of, to fix a date for the trial of the case, with previous notice served upon the parties. A case for "murder" such as the one dismissed by the trial judge is obviously one not to be taken lightly — as, apparently it was.
WHEREFORE, the appealed orders are set aside and the case is remanded below for further proceedings.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar, J., did not take part.
In the aforesaid criminal case Braulio Pamittan, Eduardo Bangayan, Ramon Cuntapay and Emilio Balisi were charged with murder. When the case was called for trial on July 19, 1965 Pamittan withdrew his former plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of homicide, with the consent of the prosecution and, thereafter, the Court sentenced him accordingly. On the same date (July 19, 1965), on motion of the Assistant Provincial Fiscal handling the case, the Court postponed the trial as far as the remaining defendants were concerned "so as to give him (the Assistant Provincial Fiscal) sufficient time to re-investigate the case to decide whether or not he should proceed with the hearing of the case," This was done without objection on the part of the defense, and the postponement was expressly made "until further assignment."cralaw virtua1aw library
On September 13, 1965, however, without setting the case for trial and without exerting any effort to ascertain whether or not the Fiscal had re-investigated the case, the trial court, motu proprio, issued the appealed order provisionally dismissing the case with respect to the remaining defendants Bangayan, Cuntapay and Balisi.
Upon the facts thus disclosed by the record, We are of the opinion, and so hold, that the order of dismissal appealed from is void. At the time it was issued the case — strictly speaking — was not ready for trial and adjudication. The trial having been postponed expressly until "further assignment," it was the duty of the trial court, before it could validly issue the order of dismissal complained of, to fix a date for the trial of the case, with previous notice served upon the parties. A case for "murder" such as the one dismissed by the trial judge is obviously one not to be taken lightly — as, apparently it was.
WHEREFORE, the appealed orders are set aside and the case is remanded below for further proceedings.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar, J., did not take part.
