ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 137681. June 28, 2004]

vs. ANTONA

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 28 2004.

G.R. No. 137681 (People of the Philippines v. Hon. Conrado R. Antona, et al.)

On January 31, 2002, this Court rendered judgment in this case as follows:

"WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition. The Court SETS ASIDE the orders granting bail to accused Dante Fajardo Sr., Paterno de Castro, Filipina Fajardo Arce, and Pio Arce in Criminal Case No. 9309, Regional Trial Court, Batangas City, Branch 04.

"No costs.

"SO ORDERED."

The motion for reconsideration was denied with finality on June 23, 2003; judgment was entered on August 1, 2003.

Thereafter, respondent Pio Arce filed a "Motion for Issuance of a Clarificatory Order," arguing that this Court's Decision setting aside the grant of bail could not have included him.

On the other hand, the prosecution also filed a "Motion for Clarification with Motion to Lift TRO," seeking a ruling on its motion for change of venue and on the lifting of the TRO issued by this Court in this case.

At the outset, it should be stated that clerical errors or mistakes or omissions plainly due to inadvertence or negligence may be corrected or supplied even after a judgment has already been entered, or has become final. Courts may direct that such inaccuracies be promptly rectified (Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124280, 9 June 1997, 273 SCRA 160).

Indeed, a review of the facts of this case show that while accused Dante Fajardo Sr., Paterno de Castro and Filipina Fajardo Arce were charged as principals for Murder, respondent Pio Arce was charged as a mere accomplice. Consequently, although the trial court denied bail to the principal accused, it fixed bail for Pio Arce's provisional liberty at P200,000.00. This was not objected to by the prosecution.

Subsequently, the principal accused filed a motion for bail, which the prosecution opposed. It was the trial court's Order granting the motion for bail which became the subject of the instant petition.

Understandably, the trial court granted bail to Pio Arce because he was not charged with a capital offense, he being a mere accomplice in the Murder case. Thus, when this Court struck down the proceedings for bail because the prosecution's right to due process was violated, it could not have meant to include Pio Arce, in whose case bail was a matter of right. Hence, the dispositive portion of this Court's Decision dated January 31, 2002, which enumerated Pio Arce as among the accused whose motions for bail should be denied, was clearly a typographical error which may still be corrected.

Anent the prosecution's clarificatory motion, it is axiomatic that a temporary restraining order is merely an ancillary process to an action owing its existence entirely and exclusively from the latter. It cannot survive the main case of which it was but an incident (Asset Privatization Trust v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 81024, 3 February 2000, 324 SCRA 533, 557). It goes without saying, therefore, that the TRO issued by this Court was automatically lifted with the final disposition of this case. As regards the motion for change of venue, the Court's silence on the matter should be deemed a denial thereof.

ACCORDINGLY, the dispositive portion of the Decision in this case dated January 31, 2002 is amended to read:

"WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition. The Court SETS ASIDE the orders granting bail to accused Dante Fajardo Sr., Paterno de Castro and Filipina Fajardo Arce in Criminal Case No. 9309, Regional Trial Court, Batangas City, Branch 04. The Temporary Restraining Order dated July 28, 1999 is LIFTED. The motion for change of venue is DENIED for lack of merit.

No costs."

The First Indorsement dated June 1, 2004 of the Office of the Chief Justice referring the letter dated May 20, 2004 of Mrs. Luzviminda Comia requesting for the early resolution of this case is NOTED .

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE