ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
MARCELINO
G. RIVERA, JR.,
G. R. No. 93219 August 30, 1990 -versus-PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINESand PARAS, J.: The instant petition seeks to annul and set aside the order dated March 28, 1990 issued by respondent Judge in Criminal Case No. 6201-R. The said order sets aside the verbal order earlier dictated in open court dismissing the case for failure to adduce evidence on the part of the prosecution. The following pertinent facts are not disputed: On December 16, 1988, petitioner Marcelino, G. Rivera, Jr. was arrested and detained for he allegedly was about to transport marijuana to Manila. Consequently, on December 20, 1988, a case for violation of Section 4, Art. II of R. A. 6425 was filed against him with the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch III presided over by respondent Judge Marcelino F. Bautista.cralaw:red Petitioner was arraigned on February 20, 1989. He pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. On April 5, 1989, the first witness for the prosecution, Cpl. Victorio Afalla, partially testified on direct examination and reserved the right to Identify the marijuana specimen allegedly confiscated from the petitioner. The hearing was thus re-set to May 3, 1989 and June 6, 1989. But due to the absence of any prosecution witness despite notice and the non-availability of the allegedly confiscated marijuana specimen, the hearings set for May 3, 1989 and June 6, 1989 were postponed to June 8, 1989.cralaw:red On June 8,1989, for the same reasons, the hearing was re-set to February 27, 1990. On February 27, 1990, Capt. Lina Sarmiento, the Forensic Chemist, who will present the marijuana specimen, despite notice, failed to appear. Petitioner, through counsel, then moved for the dismissal of the case. This was denied by respondent Judge and the hearing was re-set to March 28, 1990.cralaw:red On March 28, 1990, when the case was called at about 8:30 a.m. Capt. Lina Sarmiento despite notice, was not around thereby necessitating a second call. When the case was called for the second time at around 9:00 a.m. Capt. Sarmiento was still not around. Hence, Atty. Tomas Gorospe, in behalf of petitioner, orally moved for the dismissal of the case invoking the right to speedy trial as the petitioner stands confined and that the Government failed to prosecute or adduce evidence due to the non-appearance of a vital prosecution witness.cralaw:red The respondent
Judge verbally granted the motion
and ordered the immediate release of the accused.
Alleging that the verbal order of dismissal made in open court amounted to the acquittal of petitioner and which order is immediately final and executory, the respondent Judge could no longer set it aside without violating petitioner's constitutional right against double jeopardy.cralaw:red The petition should be denied. The earlier verbal order of dismissal was not final, in fact, was ineffective, because it left something to be done in line with the decision of this Court in Cabarroguis vs. San Diego, L-19517, Nov. 30, 1962, 6 SCRA 866. This Court in said case ruled:
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is denied. The case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. Melencio-Herrera, Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur. Sarmiento, J., is on leave. |
|