ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. L-40633.April 2, 2002]
PEOPLE vs. HONDOLERO
EN BANC
Gentleman:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 2 2002.
G.R. No. L-40633(People of the Philippines, vs. Telesforo Hondolero y Brazil.)
Accused Telesforo Hondolero was charged with the crime of forcible abduction with rape and homicide before the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch VI, Carigara, Leyte.The same was docketed as Criminal Case No. C-507.On February 21, 1975, the trial court rendered a decision sentencing Hondolero to death, the decretal portion of which reads:
ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the Court hereby renders judgment finding the accused Telesforo Hondolero y Brazil GUILTY of the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape and Homicide defined and punished by Arts. 342, 335 and 249 in relation to Art. 48, all of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby imposes upon him the extreme penalty of DEATH, to be executed in accordance with the provision of Arts. 81-85, Revised Penal Code, and further sentences him to pay to the heirs of the deceased victim civil indemnity in the amount of P12,000.00 and costs of this action. [1] cralaw
Consequently, the case was elevated to this Court on automatic review.
On August 25, 1976, the Court speaking through Justice Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr.rendered a decision setting aside the judgment of the trial court on the ground that Hondolero entered an improvident plea of guilt.Why the Court considered Hondolero's plea of guilt improvident is explained, thus:
xxx
On January 30, 1975, the accused was arraigned.At the start of the session, Atty. Cabelin, counsel de oficio for the accused, made the following manifestation:
"Atty. Cabelin:
* * *����� After a long conference with the accused in the cell and also in the courtroom, after explaining to him the information against him after informing the accused of the statements taken from him during the preliminary investigation, still the accused informed this representation, that he intends and desires to plead guilty to the offense although at the time of the commission he did not know how it happened.He was out of his mind.He was drunk so another explanation was made upon him, Your Honor, and finally still decided to plead guilty to the offense so we have no other recourse than to submit that the accused is ready for arraignment.
Thereafter, the following proceedings took place:
"COURT: .... To accused.
Q.You are know informed that you are about to be arraigned, meaning you will be informed of the charges against you.Is it true that you intend to plead guilty to the offense of forcible abduction with rape and homicide?
A.I am guilty.
Q.Do you know what will come to you after you have pleaded guilty?
A.I am guilty.
(Interpreter repeating the question of the court.)
...(Accused does not answer.He keeps on looking down.)
Q.Specifically, do you know that once you plead guilty you will face the possibility of being burned in the electric chair? Do you know that or you don't know?
A.No, Your Honor, I do not know.
Q.All right, you are now informed formally and for the record that if you plead guilty you might be sent to the electric chair to die although that is not a sure thing because there is still the President of the Philippines that can still commute your sentence but not the courts.
A.I will receive the penalty to be imposed on me.
Q.Have you gone to school ever?
A.No, Your Honor.
Q.Why?
A.Because I was not sent to school when I was still young.
Q.You had your parents to support while still a boy?
A.My father and mother separated while I was still young and it was my grandparents who looked after me.
Q.In what barrio were you living at the time that you would have gone to school?
A.Barrio Barayong.
Q.Where, Carigara?
A.Carigara.
Q.How far is that to the town?
A.It is not too far.
..... Make it of record that that barrio named is about 3 � kms. to the town.
Q.Are you married?
A.No, Your Honor.
Q.Before the incident, what was your means of livelihood?
A.Just enough for my personal needs.
..... All right, I think we have given all the chances to back out.
Q.All right, for the second time, are you ready for arraignment?
A.Yes, Your Honor.
..... To Atty. Cabelin
Atty. Cabelin, have you determined whether he is really ready for arraignment? For how long have you been assigned as counsel de oficio in this case, since when?
ATTY.CABELIN:
I was informed about 3 or 4 days ago, Your Honor, that I would be assigned as counsel de oficio for this accused.
COURT:
You satisfied yourself that there is nothing we can do?
ATTY.CABELIN:
I think there is no more way of making him change his stand.
COURT:
So we will arraign your client.
ATTY. CABELIN:
We are ready for arraignment, Your Honor.
COURT:
All right, arraign him.
(Interpreter reading he information in the local dialect.) Are you guilty or not?
ACCUSED:
I am guilty, Your Honor.
COURT:
Q. You are not going to change that?
A. No, Your Honor.
.....All right, enter the plea of guilty.
Subsequently, on February 21, 1975,the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
"ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the Court hereby renders judgment finding the accused Telesforo Hondolero y Brazil GUILTY of the crime of forcible Abduction with rape and homicide defined and punished by Arts. 342, 335 and 249 in relation to Art. 48, all the Revised Penal Code, and hereby imposes upon him the extreme penalty of DEATH, to be executed in accordance with the provisions of Arts. 81-85, Revised Penal Code, and further sentences him to pay to the heirs of the deceased victim civil indemnity in the amount of P12,000.00 and costs of this action."
The case is now before us for automatic review.
Atty. Arturo Alafriz, who was appointed by this Court as counsel de oficio for the accused - appellant, claims in his only assigned error that the lower court erred in imposing on him the death penalty without taking evidence independent of his plea of guilty.The Solicitor General in his manifestation in lieu of appellee's brief likewise observes that the trial court failed to follow the procedure laid down by this Court in cases where the plea of guilty is entered in capital offenses.
We have meticulously examined the records of this case, and We are convinced that the trial court failed to observe that degree of care which this Court has prescribed for a valid admission of a plea of guilty by an accused, especially where the commission of capital offenses is charged as in the present case.
To start with, the trial court did not at all explain to the accused-appellant the nature of the charge against him, especially the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength, which are terms so technical that, unless explained, a layman cannot possibly be expected to understand them, much less one who is unschooled like the accused-appellant.Moreover, the record reveals that the trial court did not propound any question to the accused-appellant on the circumstances attending the commission of the crime with which he was charged so as to leave no room for doubt as to the possibility of his misunderstanding the nature and gravity of the charge to which he was pleading guilty.x x x [2] cralaw
The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
ACCORDINGLY, the decision appealed from is set aside, and this case is remanded to the court a quo for a new arraignment of the accused, and thereafter for further proceedings in accordance with law and consistently with the views herein expressed. No costs.
SO ORDERED. [3] cralaw
The Court's decision became final and executory and an entry of judgment was accordingly issued.
The next time the Court's attention was drawn to the case was on April 19. 2000, when Hondolero filed before the Court an urgent motion to withdraw appeal.This prompted the court to inquire into the status of the remanded case.
On May 15, 2000, Jose G. Ang, Chief Judicial Staff Officer and Chief, Judgment Division wrote the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch XIII, Carigara, Leyte, requesting for a copy of the decision of the remanded case.No response was received.On August 22, 2000, Mr. Ang again wrote the Clerk of Court reiterating this Court's request for information on the status of the case.Again, there was no reply.Sometime in October 2000, Mr. Ang wrote the Clerk of Court for the third time.On December 5, 2000, Atty. Joseph N. Escalona, Branch Clerk of Court of said RTC, informed the Court that no record of herein case appears in the files of said court.He wrote:
xxx
This has reference to your undated letter which was received by this court on October 30, 2000 requiring undersigned to "furnish copy of the decision of the remanded case and an information of any appeal filed by the aggrieved party", (letter dated August 22, 2000).
Please be informed that per verification of all criminal cases in this Court, norecord of the above-entitled case appears to be in our files.However, Criminal Docket Book No. 9, which unfortunately is now extremely dilapidated, an entry dated September 9, 1976 appears thereon remanding the said case to the Court for new arraignment.No further entries follow thereafter.This is corroborated by the attached affidavit of Mr. Jose S. Caballes, the present Staff Assistant assigned in Criminal Cases.
Incidentally, undersigned has just assumed office sometime in 1996, hence, I have to rely solely upon the existing records on such date.
xxx [4] cralaw
On March 20, 2001, the Court directed the Bureau of Correction to inform the Court of the whereabouts of the accused.
On April 18, 2001, the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Corrections informed the Court that herein accused was received at the New Bilibid Prison on April 30, 1975.
No other information was available.
Consequently, the Court issued a Resolution on July 4, 2001 directing the Office of the Court Administrator to conduct an investigation and thereafter, make a report and recommendation to the Court not later than July 30, 2001, with the specific instruction that it would like to be informed (a) on the status of the remanded case, (b) why no further proceedings were conducted thereon after it was entered as a remanded case in the Criminal Docket of subject RTC in 1976, and (c) who is/ are responsible for the apparent inaction.
In compliance with the above resolution, the Office of the Court Administrator submitted its findings and recommendation, viz:
This is in compliance with the resolution dated 4 July 2001 directing the Office of the Court Administrator to conduct an investigation and make a report and recommendation on the present status of the appealed criminal case entitled "Pp. vs Telesforo Hondolero Y Brazil" docketed as G.R. No. L-46033 which was remanded to the court of origin for the new arraignment and trial.
The office sent Atty. Bartolome V. Flores to the Regional Trial Court, Leyte to conduct an investigation on the matter.As per his report, the records of the case cannot be located.The only available record shown him was dilapidated Criminal Case Docket Book No. 9, wherein a page thereof concerning the subject appealed Criminal Case No. C-507 was photo copied as Annex "A" of his report.The last entry appearing therein reads:
"1976 September 29 accordingly, the decision appealed is set aside and this case is remanded to the court a quo for a new arraignment of the accused."
A log book was also presented to him wherein the entryin item No. 506, contain the name of the accused Hontolero (sic); that he was charged for forcible abduction with rape and homicide; the penalty imposed is death, and the date 4-25-75.This book confirms the second to the last entry in the Criminal Case Docket Book No. 9 which reads "4-25-75 for Review."
No other record book was presented to him to trace the movement of the record of the case.
The former Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Carigara, Leyte, Atty. Archemedes G. Marpa, who was then a legal researcher in CFI Branch 13, also designated in a concurrent capacity by Judge Melicor as Court interpreter revealed that the accused in the case, Telesforo Hondolero y Brazil was re-arraigned.A subsequent trial was conducted a month after the receipt of the record of the case and the accused was again sentenced to death.
The statement of Atty. Marpa was affirmed by Atty. Jose H. Almocera, the assistant provincial fiscal who allegedly prosecuted the case.He narrated that when the accused was arraigned he refused to speak and so, a plea of not guilty was entered for him.That the father of the victim was presented as a witness and that when the accused was placed on the witness stand he likewise refused to talk.
The report of Atty. Flores also states that the former Clerk of Court of Branch VI CFI, Carigara Atty. Marcial Z. Seron is already 78 years old, weak and bed-ridden.His voice is faint and can only recall that the Hondolero case was tried twice.The clerk in charge of criminal cases who retired in 1992 Mrs. Mercedes L. Custado, also cannot recall what happened to the records of the case although she admitted having made the entries in the aforementioned Criminal Case Docket No. 9.
Pertinent portions of the report (of Atty. Bartolome V. Flores of the OCA) reads; thus
"The docket book is where all the movements of the case is recorded and there being other means by which the record of Criminal Case No. C-507 can be traced, the undersigned as a last resort went to the Muntinlupa National Penitentiary to see if any lead can be obtained from their records.
In the record (carpeta) of the accused Telesforo Hondolero y Brazil kept in the Documents Section of the said correctional institution, are copies of Supreme Court resolutions, orders of CFI and other papers which are pertinent to the case.The same were photo copied and attached as ANNEX "C" to "M" of this report, to wit:
1.Information dated January 21, 1975 signed by Assistant Provincial Fiscal Jose H. Almocera (ANNEX "C");
2.DECISION dated February 21, 1975 of Judge Meneleo Melicor (ANNEX "D");
3.COMMITMENT ORDER dated April 8, 1975 signed by Judge Melicor (ANNEX "E");
4.Supreme Court decision dated August 25, 1976 in G.R. No. L-40633, (ANNEX "F");
5.Supreme Court entry of Judgment dated August 25, 1976 (ANNEX "G");
6.ORDER dated October 21, 1976 of Judge Melicor authorizing the Director of Prisons to transfer the person of the accused to the sub-provincial jail in Carigara, Leyte for new arraignment and thereafter for further proceedings in accordance with law "Pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court dated August 25, 1976.(ANNEX "H");
7.Supreme Court En Banc resolution dated March 24, 1977 - acting on the letter dated March 1, 1977 of Judge Meneleo Melicor praying that the accused who was transferred from the New Bilibid Prison to the sub-provincial in Carigara, Leyte be returned to the new Bilibid Prison for the reasons stated therein; and directing "the Provincial Warden of Leyte" to return said accused to the New Bilibid Prison, the latter to remain thereat until the prosecution is ready to adduce evidence xxx" (ANNEX "F");
8.�� 2 nd Indorsement dated May 6, 1977 of Judge Numerio G. Estenzo directing the sub-provincial warden of Leyte to immediately return the accused Telesforo Hondolero y Brazil alias "Tele" to the new Bilibid Prison pursuant to the Supreme Court resolutiondated March 24, 1977 (ANNEX "J");
9.�� Supreme Court Resolution dated July 5, 1977 noting the letter dated June 23, 1977 of Penal Superintendent II Victoriano A. Tolaan stating that the accused was returned to the New Bilibid Prison on June 21, 1977 (ANNEX "K");
10. Letter dated 2 July 1992 of Assistant Director of Bureau of Prisons Jesus Villanueva, addressed to the Clerk of Court Carigara, Leyte inquiring about the status of the criminal case(ANNEX "L");
11. Letter-inquiry dated March 8, 1994, about the status of the same criminal case; and reiterating the letter dated March 16, 1997 with in the information that prisoner Hondolero has been in prison for more than 19 years and is already qualified for executive clemency if cleared of his case;(ANNEX "M").
It may not be amiss to state at this juncture that not a single Supreme Court resolution or CFI order directing the transfer of the accused Hondolero to the sub-provincial jail of Carigara for the presentation of the evidence of the prosecution is found in the carpeta of Hondolero.
On this score, since there is no entry in Docket Book No. 9 showing that the accused was again sentenced to death and that the record of the case was again forwarded to the Supreme Court for review, the most logical conclusion under the circumstances is that - from the time the accused Hondolero was return to the New Bilibid prison in compliance with resolution dated March 24, 1977 (ANNEX "G") and was received in the New Bilibid prison on June 23, 1977, as embodied in the SC resolution dated July 15, 1977 (ANNEX "J") NOTING the letter of Mr. Victoriano A. Totaan (sic) - NO further proceedings was conducted and the prosecution did not present its evidence.That due to the inaction for a long period of time, the record of the case was relegated to oblivion , so to speak.
The persons liable for the missing record of the case are:
1.�������� Judge Numeriano Estenzo who appears to have taken over Judge Meneleo Melicor as evidence[d] by his 2 nd indorsement dated May 6, 1977 (ANNEX "I") directing the sub-provincial warden of Carigara to immediately return the accused Hondolero to the New Bilibid Prison pursuant to the SC resolution dated March 24, 1977.Judge Estenzo did not make any move to require the prosecution to presentits evidence knowing that the accused is confined at the National Penitentiary.Judge Estenzo has retired and is now deceased.
2.�������� Clerk of Court Marcial Z. Serona who is responsible for all court records and equipment and who should exercised closer supervision over the clerk in charge of criminal cases, to avoid the loss of the records of the Hondolero case. He is retired and sickly at 78 years old.
3.�������� Mrs. Mercedes L. Custado who as clerk in charge of criminal cases is responsible for the safe keeping of the record of the case; is already retired.
However, considering that all of them are no longer in the service, they can no longer be proceeded against administratively.
The original rollo of this case has been destroyed in the 1986 floods as per the memorandum dated January 30, 2001 of Mr. Jose G. Ang, Chief of the Judgment Division of this Court (rollo p.21).The temporary rollo sent to the Court of the First Instance of Carigara, Leyte, likewise has been lost.In the meantime the accused has been languishing in prison for the past 26 years without any valid judgment to justify his continued incarceration because the decision dated February 21, 1975 sentencing him to death was set aside by the Supreme Court in its decision en banc dated August 25, 1976.To have the record of the case reconstituted will take sometime, and will add to the injustice being now suffered by the accused.
In view thereof, it is respectfully recommended that:1) the Urgent Motion to Withdraw APPEAL filed by the accused Telesforo Hondolero y Brazil (rollo, p.10) be treated as a MOTION TO DISMISS by the Honorable Court, there being no sentence/Judgment being appealed from; 2) the records of this case on hand, including those retrieved from the document section of the Bureau of Prisons, Muntinlupa City be sent to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Carigara, Leyte and that the Honorable Crisostomo L. Garrido, presiding judge of that court be DIRECTED a.)to act on the urgent Motion to withdraw Appeal, now treated as a motion to dismiss; b.) to examine Atty. Archimedes Marpa and Atty. Jose H. Almocera regarding their claims that a second trial was conducted and that according to the former, the accused Hondolero was sentenced to death twice by Judge Meneleo Melicor and c.)to confront them with the 2 nd indorsement dated May 6, 1977 of Judge Numeriano Estenzo (ANNEX "I" of this report), who appeared to have taken over the court of Judge Melicor, as well as the resolution of the Honorable Court En Banc dated March 24, 1977 directing the transfer of the accused to the New Bilibid prison and for him to remain thereat until the prosecution is ready to adduce evidence - which strongly suggest that the prosecution was not able to adduce evidence otherwise the Bureau of Prison Authorities should have been ordered by the Supreme Court or the Court of the First Instance to transfer the accused to the Carigara sub-provincial jail for trial and the carpeta of the accused is bereft of such order; 3) that Judge Garrido be instructed to ascertain the feasibility of the case being DISMISSED for failure to prosecute (for a very long period of time) which is in gross violation of the Constitutional right of the accused to a speedy trial, specially so since there is no valid and existing judgment/sentence to justify his continued incarceration. [5] cralaw
Thereafter, the Court required the Office of the Solicitor General to comment on the Court Administrator's Memorandum and designated the Public Attorney's Office as counsel de officio for Hondolero and required said counsel to comment on the status of the case.
On September 27, 2001, the Office of the Solicitor General submitted its comment subscribing in toto to the findings and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator, thus:
As of June 23,1977, appellant was already returned to the NBP awaiting his eventual re-transfer to the Carigara, Leyte sub-provincial jail when the prosecution would be ready to present its evidence in Criminal Case No. C-507.
However, there is nothing in the case record to show that appellant (1) was re-arraigned, (2) underwent trial and (3) again sentenced to death.Nor was there any Supreme Court resolution or CFI/RTC order directing appellant's transfer to the sub-provincial jail for the presentation of the evidence of the prosecution.Testimonial evidence, which was secured the Office of the Court Administrator, consisted of the statements of former CFI Clerk of Court, Atty. Marcial Z. Seron, and the clerk in-charge of criminal cases, Mercedes L. Custado.Atty. Seron, who is now 78 years old, weak and bedridden, recalled that appellant was tried twice, while Ms. Custado could not recall what happened to the case records but admitted making the entries on the Criminal Case Docket Book No. 9 pertaining to appellant's case.
From the foregoing, and specifically noting the fact that there is no entry in the Docket Book to show that appellant was again sentenced to death and the case again forwarded to this Honorable Court for automatic review, it logically follows that from the time appellant was returned to the NBP on June 23, 1977, no further proceedings were conducted and the prosecution was unable to present its evidence against the appellant.It would, thus, appear that appellant has been languishing in both the Carigara sub-provincial jail and NBP for more than twenty six (26) years without any valid appealed case or final Judgment to justify further imprisonment.
Under the Circumstances obtaining and in order to expedite the proceedings, the OSG respectfully concurs with the recommendations stated in Deputy Court administrator Ponferrada's Memorandum, particularly: (a) for this Honorable Court to treat appellant's motion to withdraw appeal as a motion to dismiss; (b) to send the entire records of the case to the RTC, Branch 13, Carigara, Leyte and to direct Presiding Judge Crisostomo L. Garrido to act on the urgent motion to withdraw appeal, now treated as a motion to dismiss, and (c) to instruct judge Garrido to ascertain the feasibility of dismissing the case for failure to prosecute (at p. 6 of Memorandum).
Sections 14 (2) and 16 of the 1987 Constitution read:
SEC.14.xxx
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.However, after arraignment trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
SEC.16. All persons have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasijudicial or administrative bodies.
Thus, unless evidence contrary to the findings of the office of the Court Administrator is presented before Judge Garrido, Criminal Case NO. C-507 should be dismissed with prejudice due to the undisputed violation of appellant's constitutional right to speedy trial.[Calderon-Bargas v. RTC of Pasig, Metro manila, Br. 162, 227 SCRA 56 (1993)]. [6] cralaw
On November 14, 2001, the Public Attorney's Office submitted its compliance.Said office concurs the recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator and the Office of the Solicitor General.
The unanimous recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, the Office of the Solicitor General and the Public Attorney's Office to treat Hondolero's "Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal" as a Motion to Dismiss the Criminal case filed, and thereafter, to grant the same on the ground of violation of the accused's right to speedy trial and failure to prosecute, is welll-taken.
The right of an accused to speedy trial is guaranteed to him by the 1987 Constitution, more specifically under section 14 (2), Article III thereof.The primordial purpose of this constitutional right is to prevent the oppression of the accused by delaying criminal prosecution for an indefinite period of time. [7] cralaw It is intended to prevent delays in the administration of justice by requiring judicial tribunals to proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal prosecutions. [8] cralaw As defined in a number of cases, a speedy trial is one conducted according to the law of criminal procedure and the rules and regulations, free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays, without participation or fault of the accused, or when without cause of justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. [9] cralaw Vexatious suggestsan act which is willful and without reasonable cause, for the purpose of annoying and embarrassing another or one lacking justification and intended to harass.Oppressive connotes an unjust or cruel exercise of power or authority.Capricious action means willful and unreasoning action. [10] cralaw In Acebedo v. People, [11] cralaw The Court held that:
The right to a speedy trial means one free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays, its salutary objective being to assure that an innocent person may be free from anxiety and expense of a court litigation or, if otherwise, of having guilt determined within the shortest possible time compatible with the presentation and consideration of whatever legitimate defense he may interpose.
Conformably to the above constitutional provision, the cited rulings and factual antecedents of this case, the Court holds that Hondolero's right to speedy trial has been infringed.
After this Court rendered its decision on August 25, 1976 remanding the instant case for re-arraignment and further proceedings, there appears nothing in the records of the subject RTC to show whether Hondolero was re-arraigned or that he under went trial de novo.What only appears in the record of Hondolero at the Muntinlupa National Penitentiary after the case was remanded to the lower court are the following documents: (a) Order dated October 21, 1976 of Presiding judge Manelo Melicor authorizing the Director of Prisons to transfer Hondolero to the sub-provincial jail in Carigara, Leyte for new arraignment and for further proceedings; (b) Supreme Court Resolution dated March 24, 1977 directing the Provincial Warden of Leyte to Return Hondolero to the new Bilibid Prison and for the latter to remain thereat until the Prosecution is ready to adduce its evidence.(The Court acted on the letter dated March 1, 1997 of Judge Melicor praying that Hondolero be transferred from the sub-provincial jail of Leyte to the New Bilibid Prison); (c) 2 nd Indorsement dated May 6, 1977 of Judge Numeriano G. Estenzo directing the sub-provincial jail warden of Leyte to immediately return Hondolero to the New Bilibid Prison pursuant to the Court Resolution dated March 24, 1977; and (d) Supreme Court Resolution dated July 5, 1977 nothing the letter dated June 23, 1977 of Penal Superintendent II Victoriano A. Tolaan sating that Hondolero was received by the New Bilibid Prison on June 21, 1977 for confinement.Thereafter, nothing else was filed in Hondolero's case records.From 1977 up to the present time, or for a period of more than Twenty-five (25) years, Hondolero was remained in custody has been languishing in jail.
Given the foregoing antecedents, Hondolero's right to have a speedy trial has been blatantly violated through sheer neglect and inaction on the part of the trial court and the prosecution after the remand of the case for re-arraignment for more than 25 years.The delay which is no doubt unspeakably unreasonable, has violated not only Hondolero's right to speedy trial but also his right to liberty and due process.He has stayed behind bars for the good part of his adult life, perhaps, without even knowing, being an illiterate, that he was entitled to another trial before his life became forfeit.He has not contributed in any manner to the long delay in the prosecution of his case.It was only much later when he became curious enough to make inquiries about the status of his case as evidenced by the number of letters he wrote to the authorities concerned.The courts should be the last to set an example of delay and oppression in the administration of justice. [12] cralaw Lamentably though, no official or employee of the Court can be held administratively liable for the delay because all persons responsible for the said remiss and negligence have all retired from the service.Consequently, it has now become the moral and legal obligation of this Court to see that the criminal proceedings against an accused come to an end and that he be immediately discharged from the custody of the law.
ACCORDINGLY, accused Telesforo Hondolero is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.(Puno and Vitug, JJ., are abroad on official business.)
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Acting Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 7.
[2] cralaw Id., at 66-71.
[3] cralaw Id., at 9.
[4] cralaw Id., at 18.
[5] cralaw Rollo , pp. 35-41.
[6] cralaw Id., at 148-151.
[7] cralaw Dacanay v. People, 240 SCRA 247 (1970); Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, 253 SCRA 773 (1996).
[8] cralaw Dacanay v. People, supra.; Flores v. People, 61 SCRA 331 (1974), citing Shepherd v. U.S., 163 F. 2d. 974 (1947).
[9] cralaw Conde v. Rivera, 45 Phil. 650 (1924); Kalaw v. Apostol, 64 Phil. 852 (1937); Acebedo v. Sarmiento, 36 SCRA 247 (1970); Flores v. People , supra.; Dacanay v. People, supra.; Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan, 199 SCRA 298 (1991); People v. Tampal, 244 SCRA 202 (1995); People v. Leviste, 255 SCRA 238 (1996); Binay v. Sandiganbayan, 316 SCRA 65 (1999).
[10] cralaw Tai Lim v. Court of Appeals, 317 SCRA 521 (1999), citing Steward v. State, 13 Arkansas 720.
[11] cralaw Supra.
[12] cralaw People v. Castaneda, 63 Phil. 480 (1936), citing Conde v. Rivera, supra.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
