Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 195844 - (Manuel L. Siquian v. People of the Philippines and Celia Singson Siquian)

This resolves the petition to review^[1]  the rulings^[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City^[3]  (RTC) affirming the orders of the Metropolitan Trial Court^[4] (MeTC) refusing dismissal of the concubinage charge against petitioner and his co-accused.

In May 1983, the Quezon City Fiscal's Office (prosecutor), based on a complaint filed by petitioner's wife, respondent Celia Singson Siquian (private respondent), charged petitioner and his co-accused^[5] before the MeTC with concubinage,^[6] docketed as Criminal Case No. 0217172. The MeTC issued original and alias warrants of arrest against petitioner which were returned unserved, leaving the MeTC no choice but to archive the case on 28 November 1983.

Petitioner was arrested in mid-2007 and posted bail on 12 December 2007. After his arraignment on 27 August 2008, petitioner, on 11 September 2008, sought the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 0217172, claiming that the pendency of the case since 1983 violated his constitutional right to speedy trial and, alternatively, caused the charge against him to prescribe, applying Article 90 in relation to Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

The MeTC refused dismissal, holding that there was neither denial of petitioner's right to speedy trial, as petitioner himself caused the delay in the proceedings by remaining at large, nor prescription of offense, as the running of the prescriptive period was interrupted after private respondent filed her complaint with the prosecutor's office. Petitioner unsuccessfully sought reconsideration.

Petitioner appealed to the RTC under Rule 65. In its rulings now under appeal, the RTC dismissed the petition, holding that petitioner's case was "justifiably archived x x x when petitioner cannot be arrested" and for the same reason, the running of the prescriptive period remained interrupted as the archiving of the case was "imputable to [petitioner]" who evaded arrest.^[7] Petitioner sought but was denied reconsideration.

Hence, this petition, reiterating the arguments raised before, and rejected by, the RTC.

In their separate Comments, the Office of the Solicitor General and private respondent pray for the petition's denial.

We deny the petition for lack of merit.

First. In determining whether an accused's constitutional right to speedy trial^[8]  has been impaired, the length of delay in the proceedings while relevant, is not dispositive. The reason for the delay and the prejudice wrought to the accused are also material.^[9] These factors are carefully weighed because the accused's right not to be subjected to unnecessarily long trial is counterbalanced by the State's right to a reasonable opportunity to prove its case against the accused. Dismissals for violation of the right to speedy trial, even if sought by the accused, amount to an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes, forever barring the State from prosecuting the accused for the same offense.^[10] 

Here, there is no dispute that the MeTC archived Criminal Case No. 0217172 on 28 November 1983 because law enforcement agents could not serve the original and alias warrants of arrest on petitioner. The RTC, sustaining the MeTC, found petitioner to have evaded arrest. We find nothing on record or in law to justify reversal of this finding. The legal presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties,^[11] which petitioner failed to rebut, means that the authorities exerted efforts to locate and place petitioner under the jurisdiction of the MeTC but were unable to do so because petitioner could not be located. That petitioner remained at large until 2007 is no reason to discard this presumption absent any convincing proof of dereliction of duty by identified law enforcers. The presumption is in place precisely to spare courts from having to engage in speculation to settle contested questions of fact.^[12]

Nor do we find merit in petitioner's claim that the period during which Criminal Case No. 0217172 was archived caused him prejudice because "of the possibility that his defense will be impaired."^[13] The prejudice contemplated by the constitutional protection in question is actual and substantiated, not merely possible which, under the law, amounts to no prejudice.

Second. We likewise find no merit in petitioner's argument of prescription. Under Article 91 of the RPC, "[t]he period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered x x x, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings x x x are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to" the accused. Petitioner argues that the 10-year prescriptive period for Criminal Case No. 0217172,^[14]  after having been interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor's office, commenced to run again after Criminal Case No. 0217172 was archived on 28 November 1983 because the proceedings were "unjustifiably stopped without fault on the part of petitioner.�^[15] The contention fails to hold water in light of our holding above sustaining the uniform findings of the MeTC and the RTC that Criminal Case No. 0217172 was archived and remained unopened until 2007 for a reason imputable to petitioner.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition.

SO ORDERED. (Perez, J., on official leave; Perlas-Bernabe, J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1114 dated 3 October 2011)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
  Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

^[2] Decision dated 27 July 2010 and Resolution dated 16 February 2011 penned by Judge Alexander S. Balut.

^[3] Branch 76.

^[4] Branch 42.

^[5] Josephine Singson.

^[6] Under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code.

^[7] Rollo, p. 40.

^[8] Constitution, Article III, Section 14 and Section 16.

^[9] Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, 484 Phil. 899, 918 (2004).

^[10] Acebedo v. Sarmiento, 146 Phil. 820 (1970).

^[11] Section 3(m), Rule 131, Revised Rules on Evidence.

^[12] It will not do for petitioner to lay the blame for his non-arrest on private respondent. The duty to effect arrests by virtue of a warrant lies with law enforcement officers (Rule 113, Sections 3, 4, and 7). Citizens can make arrests without warrant only for the limited instances provided under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (under Rule 113, Section 5).

^[13] Rollo, p. 21.

^[14] Applying Article 90, paragraph 3 of the RPC.

^[15] Rollo, p. 28.