SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-68566 April 15, 1985

ALEX COMBATE, Petitioner, vs. THE HON. GERONIMO R. SAN JOSE, JR., Municipal Trial Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Magarao-Canaman, Camarines Sur, Respondent.chanrobles virtual law library

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

In this Petition for Certiorari, filed with the assistance of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office (Naga City), petitioner-accused seeks to annul respondent Judge's Decision in Criminal Case No. 1915 of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Magarao-Canaman, Camarines Sur, convicting him of Theft, on the ground that it was rendered in violation of his constitutional rights.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The records disclose that petitioner was charged before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Magarao-Canaman, Camarines Sur, presided by respondent Judge, with the crime of Theft of "one (1) Rooster [Fighting Cock] color red, belonging to Romeo Posada worth P200.00." ¹chanrobles virtual law library

Following the procedure laid down in the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases, respondent Judge required petitioner and his witnesses to submit counter-affidavits to the supporting affidavits of the complainant, ² with which petitioner complied within the period designated by the Court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On June 5, 1984, petitioner was subpoenaed to appear before respondent Judge and was arraigned without the assistance of counsel. He pleaded not guilty. ³chanrobles virtual law library

Subsequently, in an Order dated July 5, 1984, respondent Judge deemed the case submitted for resolution purportedly pursuant to the Rule on Summary Procedure. ⁴chanrobles virtual law library

In a Decision promulgated on July 16, 1984, without benefit of trial, petitioner was sentenced to suffer six (6) months' imprisonment and to pay the complainant the amount of P200.00, plus costs. ⁵chanrobles virtual law library

Seeking redress before this Court, petitioner alleges that respondent Judge had denied him due process for having been arraigned without the assistance of counsel, and for having been convicted without the benefit of trial.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The Petition is highly meritorious. The Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases applies only to criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged does not exceed six (6) months imprisonment or a fine of one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), or both. The crime of Theft as charged herein is penalized with arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, or, from two (2) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months. ⁶ Clearly, the Rule on Summary Procedure is inapplicable.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

But even assuming that the case falls under the coverage of said Rule, the same does not dispense with trial. On the contrary, it specifically provides:

Section 11. When case set for arraignment and trial. - Should the court, upon a consideration of the complaint or information and the affidavits submitted by both parties, find no cause or ground to hold the defendant for trial, it shall order the dismissal of the case; otherwise, the court shall set the case for arraignment and trial.

Section 14. Procedure of Trial. - Upon a plea of not guilty being entered, the trial shall immediately proceed The affidavits submitted by the parties shall constitute the direct testimonies of the witnesses who executed the same. Witnesses who testified may be subjected to cross-examination. Should the affiant fail to testify, his affidavit shall not be considered as competent evidence for the party presenting the affidavit, but the adverse party may utilize the same for any admissible purpose.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

No witness shall be allowed to testify unless he had previously submitted an affidavit to the court in accordance with Sections 9 and 10 hereof. (emphasis supplied)

In the case at bar, since petitioner-accused had pleaded not guilty, trial should have proceeded immediately. But not only was petitioner unrepresented by counsel upon arraignment; he was neither accorded the benefit of trial. Respondent Judge based his judgment of conviction merely on the affidavits submitted, without the petitioner having been even given the chance to confront or cross-examine the affiants. There being a clear deprivation of petitioner's fundamental right to due process of law, ⁷ the assailed Decision should be set aside. When judgment is rendered in complete disregard of all norms of procedure, the whole proceeding in question is completely void, ⁸and the case should be remanded for trial and proceedings strictly in accordance with law. ⁹Considering that the judgment is void, it is as if there were no judgment at all and no double jeopardy attaches. ¹⁰chanrobles virtual law library

ACCORDINGLY, granting Certiorari, respondent Judge's Decision promulgated on July 16, 1984, is hereby ANNULLED for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. The case is remanded to the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Magarao-Canaman, Camarines Sur, for proceedings strictly in accordance with law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

1 Rollo, p. 43.chanrobles virtual law library

2 Ibid., p. 48.chanrobles virtual law library

3 Ibid., p. 52.chanrobles virtual law library

4 Ibid., p. 53.chanrobles virtual law library

5 Ibid., p. 62.chanrobles virtual law library

6 Article 309[4] Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtual law library

7 Sections 17 & 19, Article IV, 1973 Constitution.chanrobles virtual law library

8 People vs. Kayanan, 83 SCRA 437 [1978].chanrobles virtual law library

9 People vs. Bacayong, 54 SCRA 289 [1973].chanrobles virtual law library

10 People vs. Court of Appeals, 101 SCRA 450 [1980]; People vs. Brecinio, 125 SCRA 182 [1983].