7/3/2015

G.R.No.192898

TodayisFriday,July03,2015

Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.192898January31,2011
SPOUSESALEXANDERTRINIDADandCECILIATRINIDAD,Petitioners,
vs.
VICTORANG,Respondent.
RESOLUTION
BRION,J.:
We resolve the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner spouses Alexander Trinidad and Cecilia Trinidad
(petitioners)tochallengeourResolutionofSeptember29,2010.OurResolutiondeniedthepetitionforreviewon
certiorari for its failure to state the material dates of receipt of the order1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch44,MasbateCity,andoffilingthemotionforreconsideration,inviolationofSections4(b)2and5,3 Rule
45,inrelationtoSection5(d),4Rule56oftheRulesofCourt.
AntecedentFacts
OnSeptember3,2007,theOfficeoftheCityProsecutor,MasbateCity,issuedaResolutionrecommendingthe
filingofanInformationforViolationofBatasPambansaBilang22againstthepetitioners.OnOctober10,2007,
thepetitionersfiledwiththeDepartmentofJustice(DOJ)apetitionforreviewchallengingthisResolution.
OnMarch3,2009,theOfficeoftheCityProsecutorfiledbeforetheMunicipalTrialCourtinCities(MTCC),Fifth
JudicialRegion,MasbateCity,anInformationforViolationofBatasPambansaBilang22againstthepetitioners.
AsthecasewascoveredbytheRulesonSummaryProcedure,theMTCCorderedthepetitionerstosubmittheir
counteraffidavitsandtoappearincourtwithin10daysfromreceiptofthesaidorder.
ThepetitionersfiledaManifestationandMotiontoDeferArraignmentandProceedingsandHoldinAbeyancethe
Issuance of Warrants of Arrest5 praying, among others, for the deferment of their arraignment in view of the
pendencyoftheirpetitionforreviewbeforetheDOJ.
The MTCC, in its Order6 dated May 28, 2009, granted the motion, "subject x x x to paragraph c[,] Section 11,
Rule116oftheRevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure."OnAugust10,2009,theMTCCreconsideredthisorder,
andsetthepetitionersarraignmentonSeptember10,2009.7
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC, docketed as SCA No. 052009. The RTC, in its
decision8ofJanuary6,2010,deniedthispetition.Thepetitionersmovedtoreconsiderthisdecision,buttheRTC
deniedtheirmotioninitsorder9datedJuly5,2010.
TheRTCheldthattheMTCCjudgedidnoterrinsettingthearraignmentofthepetitionersafterthelapseofone
(1) year and ten (10) months from the filing of the petition for review with the DOJ. It explained that the cases
citedbythepetitionersweredecidedbeforetheamendmentoftheRevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure.Afterthe
amendment of the Rules on December 1, 2000, the Supreme Court applied the 60day limit on suspension of
arraignmentincaseofapendencyofapetitionforreviewwiththeDOJ.
ThepetitionersfiledwiththisCourtapetitionforreviewoncertiorariessentiallyclaimingthatthe60daylimiton
suspension of arraignment is only a general rule. They cited several cases to show that the arraignment of an
accusedshouldbedeferreduntilthepetitionforreviewwiththeDOJisresolved.
As earlier stated, we denied the petition for its failure to state the material dates of receipt of the assailed RTC
orderandoffilingthemotionforreconsideration.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_192898_2011.html

1/4

7/3/2015

G.R.No.192898

TheMotionforReconsideration
Inthepresentmotionforreconsideration,thepetitionersclaimthatthedateofreceiptoftheassailedRTCorder
wasstatedinthepetition.ThepetitionersfurtherstatethattheyfiledthemotionforreconsiderationonJanuary2,
2010.
TheCourtsRuling
Wegrantthemotionforreconsiderationandreinstatethepetitionforreviewoncertiorari.
A careful examination of the petition reveals that it stated the date when the petitioners received a copy of the
RTCs assailed order. In addition, the petitioners failure to state the material date of filing the motion for
reconsiderationisonlyaformalrequirementthatwarrantstherelaxationoftherulesinaccordancewiththeliberal
spiritpervadingtheRulesofCourtandintheinterestofjustice.
Nevertheless, we resolve to deny the petition for its failure to show any reversible error in the challenged RTC
order.
ThegroundsforsuspensionofarraignmentareprovidedunderSection11,Rule116oftheRulesofCourt,which
provides:
SEC.11.SuspensionofArraignment.Uponmotionbytheproperparty,thearraignmentshallbesuspendedin
thefollowingcases:
(a)Theaccusedappearstobesufferingfromanunsoundmentalconditionwhicheffectivelyrendershim
unabletofullyunderstandthechargeagainsthimandtopleadintelligentlythereto.Insuchcase,thecourt
shallorderhismentalexaminationand,ifnecessary,hisconfinementforsuchpurpose
(b)Thereexistsaprejudicialquestionand
(c)ApetitionforreviewoftheresolutionoftheprosecutorispendingateithertheDepartmentofJustice,or
theOfficeofthePresidentProvided,thattheperiodofsuspensionshallnotexceedsixty(60)dayscounted
fromthefilingofthepetitionwiththereviewingoffice.
In Samson v. Daway,10 the Court explained that while the pendency of a petition for review is a ground for
suspensionofthearraignment,theaforecitedprovisionlimitsthedefermentofthearraignmenttoaperiodof60
daysreckonedfromthefilingofthepetitionwiththereviewingoffice.Itfollows,therefore,thataftertheexpiration
ofsaidperiod,thetrialcourtisboundtoarraigntheaccusedortodenythemotiontodeferarraignment.
Inthepresentcase,thepetitionersfiledtheirpetitionforreviewwiththeDOJonOctober10,2007.WhentheRTC
setthearraignmentofthepetitionersonAugust10,2009,1yearand10monthshadalreadylapsed.Thisperiod
waswaybeyondthe60daylimitprovidedforbytheRules.
In addition, the cases cited by the petitioners Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. How,11 Roberts, Jr. v. CA,12
and Dimatulac v. Villon13 were all decided prior to the amendment to Section 11 of the Revised Rules of
CriminalProcedurewhichtookeffectonDecember1,2000.Atthetimethesecasesweredecided,therewasno
60daylimitonthesuspensionofarraignment.
1 w p h i1

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theCourtresolvesto:
(1) GRANT the present motion for reconsideration, and REINSTATE the petition for review on certiorari
and
(2)DENYthesaidpetitionforpetitionersfailuretoshowanyreversibleerrorinthechallengedRTCorder.
SOORDERED.
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_192898_2011.html

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice
2/4

7/3/2015

G.R.No.192898

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1DatedJuly5,2010.
2 SECTION 4. Contents of petition. The petition shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with the original

copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall x x x (b) indicate the
material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was
received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial
thereofwasreceived[.]
3 SECTION 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the

foregoingrequirementsregardingthepaymentofthedocketandotherlawfulfees,depositforcosts,proof
ofserviceofthepetition,andthecontentsofandthedocumentswhichshouldaccompanythepetitionshall
besufficientgroundforthedismissalthereof.
4SECTION5.Groundsfordismissalofappeal.Theappealmaybedismissedmotupropriooronmotion

oftherespondentonthefollowinggrounds:
xxxx
(d) Failure to comply with the requirements regarding proof of service and contents of and the
documentswhichshouldaccompanythepetition[.]
5Rollo,pp.2428.
6Id.at30.
7Id.at3133.
8CopyoftheRTCdecisionisnotattachedtotherollo.
9Rollo,pp.2122.
10G.R.Nos.16005455,July21,2004,434SCRA612.
11G.R.No.140863,August22,2000,338SCRA511.
12G.R.No.113930,March5,1996,254SCRA307.
13G.R.No.127107,October12,1998,297SCRA679.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_192898_2011.html

3/4

7/3/2015

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_192898_2011.html

G.R.No.192898

4/4