ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139263. August 23, 1999]

ELMER S. SIERRA vs. HON. RODOLFO D. OBNIMIA, JR., et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 23, 1999 .

G.R. No. 139263 (Elmer S. Sierra vs. Hon. Rodolfo D. Obnimia, Jr., et al.)

On June 9, 1999, a criminal complaint was filed against Elmer S. Sierra for the crime of Reckless Imprudence resulting to the Damage to property and Multiple Physical Injuries. Apparently, petitioner was arrested immediately after the occurrence of the accident complained of and detained in jail. Pursuant to a department Circular issued by then Secretary of Justice Teofisto Guingona, which took effect on February 1, 1996,1 [Rollo, pp. 23-27.] the Municipal Trial Court, Tiaong, Quezon set the amount of bail to about P293,000.00 for provisional liberty. On June 18, 1999, petitioner filed a motion to reduce bail to P4,000.00 or be released on recognizance since his case allegedly falls under the Rules on Summary Procedure. The MTC ordered the prosecution to file comment.2 [Id., at 17.]

Considering that the prosecution has not yet filed its comment, petitioner again filed a manifestation with motion on June 28, 1999 reiterating his prayer.

On June 30, 1999, the MTC issued a resolution declaring "this case to be falling under the regular rules of procedure. The motion to reduce bail is held in abeyance until the submission by the accused to this Court of evidences, documentary or otherwise, that will prove his ability to post bail."3 [Id., at 22.]

Accused went up to this Court on petition for habeas corpus and/or special civil action questioning, among others, the Circular of the secretary of Justice as being violative of the Constitution.

After a perusal of the records, we do not find merit in the petition. Aside from the fact that the petitioner has not observed the hierarchy of courts in filing the special civil action for certiorari questioning the constitutionality of the circular,

"x x x a writ of habeas corpus is not intended as a substitute for the functions of the trial court. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the orderly course of trial should be pursued and the usual remedies exhausted before the writ may be invoked. Habeas corpus is not ordinarily available in advance of trial to determine jurisdictional questions that may arise. It has to be an exceptional case to be available to an accused before trial. In the absence of special circumstances requiring immediate action, a court will not grant the writ and discharge the prisoner in advance of a determination of his case in court. In the case under consideration, petitioner have dismally failed to adduce any justification or exceptional circumstance which would warrant the grant of the writ, hence their petition therefor has to be denied." 4 [Galvez vs. CA, 2237 SCRA 685 (1994).]

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolves to dismiss the petition for being premature and for lack of merit."

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE