people v. hernandez digest

8/9/2019 people v. hernandez Digest

1/6

PEOPLE v. Hernandez (very long case… daming procedures)

ER: Pimentel fled a complaint against alayon ! Llorente" #$airman !%ice$airman o' t$e oard o' #anvassers o' Pasig 'or t$e ay *++,elections 'or dagdag -aas.

/t frst" it as denied -y t$e #OELE#" $oever" upon petition to t$e #"#OELE# as eventually directed to fle t$e necessary criminal c$argesagainst t$e to. 01* 2n'ormations 'or violation o' ec 13(-) o' t$e ElectoralRe'orms La ere fled. Llorente fled a motion 'or consolidation o' t$ecases" $ic$ as granted. 4$e 01* 2n'ormations ere consolidated into *case.

/t t$e pre&trial stage" enior tate Prosecutor aga-uyo 'ailed to appear'or several times at t$e sc$eduled $earings. 4$us" t$e $earings erecancelled over and over" until eventually Llorente as alloed to fle aotion to 5ismiss" on t$e ground o' a violation o' $is rig$t to a speedy

trial. 4$e otion to 5ismiss as granted. (note t$at *** days $ave elapsedsince arraignment up to t$e fling o' 45)

4$e Prosecution fled an #/ 'or certiorari under Rule 6, against t$erespondent 7udge" alleging 8/5LE7. 4$us" t$e to issues are (a) $et$ert$is is t$e proper remedy against a dismissal in t$e 4# on t$e ground o' violating t$e rig$t to speedy trial. (-) $et$er t$ere as grave a-use.

/s to t$e frst" Rule 6, is proper" since an appeal is not availa-le to t$eprosecution. A dismissal on the ground of the denial of theaccused's right to a speedy trial will have the eect of acquittalthat would bar further prosecution of the accused for the sameoense. Where the dismissal of the case was allegedly capricious,certiorari lies from such order of dismissal and does not involvedouble jeopardy, as the petition challenges not the correctnessbut the validity of the order of dismissal and such grave abuse of discretion amounts to lack of jurisdiction which prevents double jeopardy from attaching.

/s to t$e second" t$ere as no grave a-use. 4$e *** days t$at $aveelapsed 'rom t$e time private respondents ere arraigned up to t$e flingo' t$e otion to 5ismiss is -eyond t$e 9&day limit provided under t$e laand t$e rules. 4$e concept o' a ;speedy trial< is a relative term and must -e

a =e>i-le concept. Prosecution interposes an e>ception under Rule **+"ec 0(a)(0) and (') ? t$at t$ere as no inordinate delay on t$eir part to

@usti'y t$e dismissal. Hoever" delay resulting 'rom e>traordinary remediesagainst interlocutory ordersA must -e read in $armony it$ Rule 6," ec !of the "#$ which provides that the petition under "ule %& shallnot interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporaryrestraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has beenissued against the public respondent from further proceeding inthe case.

#OPLE4E:


2/6

Bacts: /Cuilino Pimentel" 7r." a senatorial candidate in ay *++, electionsfled a complaint against private respondents alayon ! Llorente"#$ariman ! %ice& #$airman o' t$e #ity oard o' #anvassers o' Pasig" and acertain Reynaldo an 7uan" #ampaign anager o' senatorial candidate

7uan Ponce Enrile" 'or decreasing Pimentel


3/6

(summarized postponements)

• 7une 1+ pre trial $earing ? postponed due to t$e Omni-us otion"$earing reset to 7uly 6.

• 7uly 6 pre&trial $earing ? cancelled" P aga-uyo did not appearMreset to 7uly 16

• 7uly pre trial 16 $earing ? cancelled" P aga-uyo still no s$o"reset to /ug 1. K2n t$e event t$at P is still a no s$o on /ug 1"#OELE# s$all tae over t$e prosecution o' t$e case.Eventually" itas reset to ept F again.ept F $earing ? didn


4/6

dou-le @eopardy ill attac$ in case t$e prosecution appeals a decisionacCuitting t$e accused" an acCuittal rendered in grave a-use o' discretionamounting to lac or e>cess o' @urisdiction does not really AacCuitA andt$ere'ore does not terminate t$e case as t$ere can -e no dou-le @eopardy-ased on a void indictment.

Here" t$e 4# dismissed t$e case due to a violation o' t$e speedy trial rule.#: a dismissal on t$e ground o' t$e denial o' t$e accusedQs rig$t to aspeedy trial ill $ave t$e eect o' acCuittal t$at ould -ar 'urt$erprosecution o' t$e accused 'or t$e same oense. N$ere a'ter suc$dismissal t$e prosecution moved 'or t$e reconsideration o' t$e order o' dismissal and t$e court re&set t$e case 'or trial" t$e accused cansuccess'ully claim dou-le @eopardy as t$e said order as actually anacCuittal" as fnal and cannot -e reconsidered.

Hence" petitioner as correct in fling a petition 'or certiorari under Rule6," alleging t$at Arespondent @udge committed grave a-use o' discretion

andor acted it$out or in e>cess o' @urisdiction in issuing t$e order o' dismissal dated ovem-er 10" 1* allegedly on account o' t$e speedytrial ruleA as an appeal as not availa-le to it. N$ere t$e dismissal o' t$ecase as allegedly capricious" certiorari lies 'rom suc$ order o' dismissaland does not involve dou-le @eopardy" as t$e petition c$allenges not t$ecorrectness -ut t$e validity o' t$e order o' dismissal and suc$ grave a-useo' discretion amounts to lac o' @urisdiction $ic$ prevents dou-le

@eopardy 'rom attac$ing.

E#O5 2IE:

4$e rig$t o' t$e accused to a speedy trial is guaranteed under /rt 222 ec*F(1) and *6. oreover" t$e peedy 4rial /ct o' *++9 provides 'or timelimits in order to ensure a speedy trial o' all criminal cases -e'ore t$eandigan-ayan" R4#" 4#" 4##" and #4#. 4$erea'ter" t$e # issued t$e2mplementing Rules o' said la. 4$is as adopted in t$e 1 RevisedRules o' #riminal Procedure.

4o it:ec. 6" Rule **+. E>tended time limit.&& otit$standing t$eprovisions o' section *(g)" Rule **6 and t$e preceding section*" 'or t$e frst telve&calendar&mont$ period 'olloing itseectivity on eptem-er *," *++9" t$e time limit it$ respect

to t$e period 'rom arraignment to trial imposed -y saidprovision s$all -e one $undred eig$ty (*9) days. Bor t$esecond telve&mont$ period" t$e time limit s$all -e one$undred tenty (*1) days" and 'or t$e t$ird telve&mont$period" the time limit shall be eighty 234 days.

2n spite o' t$e prescri-ed time limits" @urisprudence continues to adopt t$att$e concept o' a ;speedy trial is a relative term and must -e a =e>i-leconcept.0

Here" t$e *** days t$at $ave elapsed 'rom t$e time private

3 Corp, v. 9andiganba)an: 4he right to a speed) trial and a speed) disposition of a case is violated onl) (hen the

proceeding is attended b) vexatio,s% capricio,s and oppressive dela)s. ;n determining (hether the acc,sed hasbeen deprived of his right to a speed) disposition of the case and to a speed) trial% fo,r factors m,st be considered:


5/6

respondents ere arraigned up to t$e fling o' t$e otion to 5ismiss is-eyond t$e 9&day limit provided under t$e la and t$e rules. 4$epostponements at t$e instance o' t$e prosecution ere also not @ustifed.

4$e prosecution invoes an e>ception under Rule **+" ec 0(a)(0) and (')

ec. 0. E>clusions.&& 4$e 'olloing periods o' delay s$all -ee>cluded in computing t$e time it$in $ic$ trial mustcommence:

a) /ny period o' delay resulting 'rom ot$er proceedingsconcerning t$e accused" including -ut not limited to t$e'olloing: S...T0) 5elay resulting 'rom e>traordinary remediesagainst interlocutory ordersM S...T

') /ny period o' delay resulting 'rom a continuance granted -yany court motuproprio" or on motion o' eit$er t$e accused or

$is counsel" or t$e prosecution" i' t$e court granted t$econtinuance on t$e -asis o' its fndings set 'ort$ in t$e ordert$at t$e ends o' @ustice served -y taing suc$ action outeig$t$e -est interest o' t$e pu-lic and t$e accused in a speedytrial.

PROE#U /8RIE4: Prosecution argued t$at t$ere as no inordinatedelay on t$eir part to @usti'y t$e dismissal. N$en t$e arraignment o' t$eaccused $appened" ,* days elapsed -e'ore P aga-uyo fled a certioraripetition -e'ore t$e #/ Cuestioning it. #/ denied $is petition" and $is R.e'ore fling a Rule F," $e fled a motion 'or e>tension o' time. /t t$ispoint" 36 days $ave elapsed 'rom arraignment. N$en 7udge Hernandezissued t$e Order o' 5ismissal" t$e 9 day period mandated under R**+"ec 0 $as not yet lapsed. 5educting t$e time it too 7udge Hernandez toresolve petitionerQs Omni-us otion to Postpone and otion 'orReconsideration only F* days $ad lapsed a'ter private respondentsQarraignment. R**+" ec 0 provides t$at Adelay resulting 'rom e>traordinaryremedies against interlocutory ordersA is e>cluded in computing t$e timeit$in $ic$ trial must commence.

# /25: 4$is provision is not in con=ict it$ R**+" ec 0 as t$ey spea o' to dierent inds o' delay. 2' ection 0(') is not applica-le" ection 0(a)defnitely is.

Ne are O4 PERI/5E5. 5elay resulting 'rom e>traordinary remediesagainst interlocutory orders must -e read in $armony it$ ection 3" Rule6, o' t$e "ules of $ourt which provides that the petition under"ule %& shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unlessa temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunctionhas been issued against the public respondent from furtherproceeding in the case.

PetitionerQs reliance on ection 0(') o' Rule **+ is also misplaced. o$erein t$e Orders granting continuance did respondent 7udge set 'ort$ t$at $is


6/6

order as -ased on fndings t$at Kt$e ends o' @ustice served -y taingsuc$ action outeig$ t$e -est interest o' t$e pu-lic and t$e accused in aspeedy trial.

Petitioner also contends t$at respondent 7udgeQs decision consolidating t$e

01* 2n'ormations amounts to grave a-use. N$at t$is argument merelyre=ects is petitionerQs stu--orn insistence not to recognize t$e trial courtQsinterlocutory Orders o' consolidation. O4E 4H/4 4H2 2IE RE:#OOL25/42O H/5 /LRE/5 EE 5E#25E5 O4 OL 4HE 4# I4/LO 4HE #/ /5 4HE #. La o' t$e case applies. #annot -e raisedagain.

oreover" petitionerQs 'ailure to proceed to trial" as clearly s$on -y t$eevents t$at transpired in t$e trial court" as due to its on 'ault. 4$e laco' zealousness on t$e part o' t$e prosecution to prove t$at t$e senatorialelections $eld in ay *++, as marred -y t$e condemna-le practice o' Kdagdag&-aas $ic$ led to t$e dismissal o' t$e criminal c$arges against

t$e private respondents cannot -ut -e lamented. 4$e ine>plica-le 'ailure$as le't t$is #ourt no alternative e>cept to aJrm t$e dismissal o' saidc$arges 'or t$e constitutional rig$t o' t$e accused to speedy trial cannot-e $eld $ostage -y t$e disinterest and mistaes o' t$e prosecution indisc$arging its duty.

PE4242O 5E2E5

OI:/ rit o' certiorari is arranted $en *) any tri-unal" -oard or oJcer $as

acted it$out or in e>cess o' its or $is @urisdiction" or it$ grave a-use o' discretion amounting to lac or e>cess o' @urisdictionM and 1) t$ere is noappeal" nor any plain" speedy and adeCuate remedy in t$e ordinary courseo' la. /n act o' a court or tri-unal may -e considered as in grave a-use o' discretion $en t$e same as per'ormed in a capricious or $imsicale>ercise o' @udgment amounting to lac o' @urisdiction. 4$e a-use o' discretion must -e so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion o' apositive duty" or to a virtual re'usal to per'orm a duty en@oined -y la" as$ere t$e poer is e>ercised in an ar-itrary and despotic manner -ecauseo' passion or $ostility

people v. hernandez digest

Documents