[ G.R. Nos. L-9238-39. November 13, 1956 ] 100 Phil. 307
[ G.R. Nos. L-9238-39. November 13, 1956 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. VICTORIO JABAJAB, ACCUSED AND APPELLEE. D E C I S I O N
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
On March 19, 1952, in the Municipal Court of Ozamis City, Victorio Jabajab was charged with slight physical injuries committed against one Elmo Medina. On April 21, 1952, Jabajab was again in the same municipal court charged with serious physical injuries committed against one Regino Alcopra. After a joint trial, the Municipal Court found defendant guilty in both cases and sentenced him to arresto menor in the case of slight physical injuries and to one year prision correccional and to indemnify the aggrieved party in the sum of P100 in the serious physical injuries case. Jabajab appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, where the two cases were set for hearing at the City of Ozamis on September 2 for the slight physical injuries case, and September 8 for the other. Upon petition of the parties the hearing was postponed for September 22, 1952. The records show that the case for slight physical injuries was again set for hearing on June 10, 1953, but said hearing was again postponed for reasons not appearing in the record. Later, both cases were again set for hearing on August 13, 1954, but by agreement of the parties, the trial was postponed for the calendar of the court at Ozamis city. Thereafter, the court set the trial of both cases on December 9, 1954, in the capitol building at Oroquieta, Misamis Occidental. Two days before the date of the trial, that is, on December 7, 1954, the City Fiscal moved for the postponement of the hearing, alleging that he had not been duly notified of the date of the hearing on December 9; that he was not prepared for said trial, and asking that the hearing be held at Ozamis City instead of at the capitol building at Oroquieta to minimize expenses.
When the two cases were called for trial on December 9, 1954, the defendant appeared with counsel, apparently ready for trial Because the Fiscal failed to appear, counsel for the accused moved for the dismissal of the two cases, invoking his constitutional right to speedy trial. The trial court presided by Judge Crispin Borromeo, Justice of the Peace of the capital designated to act as district Judge, granted the motion, the Judge saying that inasmuch as the defendant had not been arraigned since the information in the two cases were filed in June, 1952, he dismissed the two cases provisionally but reserving to the City Fiscal the right to “refile these two cases if he so desires in the interest of justice”. The City Fiscal filed a motion for reconsideration. In the motion he reiterated his claim that he had not been duly notified of the hearing on December 9, 1954; that somebody told him of said hearing but that in the absence of such official notification, he did not feel justified to make the trip to Oroquieta to appear before the Court, but that as a measure of precaution, he filed a motion for postponement on December 7. The motion for reconsideration having been denied, the Government’ is now appealing the order of denial.
It is true that a person accused has a right to a speedy trial. However, he cannot sleep on said right but must see to it that his case be tried at an early date. In the present case, there were several postponements of the hearing of his two cases, but instead of objecting to the same, the defendant agreed to said postponements, and there is nothing in the record to show that it was the Fiscal who asked for all said postponements. As the Government counsel well observes, the defendant cannot agree to the repeated postponement of the trial of his cases and then when he finds the Government absent or unable to go to trial on any of the dates of hearing, take advantage of said absence and ask for the dismissal of his case. Moreover, the City Fiscal claims that he had not been notified of the hearing set for December 9, 1954, and this, claim was not contradicted. Furthermore we see no advantage or profit either to the defendant or to the Government in dismissing these two cases provisionally because in that case, the prosecution again would have to file the two cases in the municipal court, and have the defendant rearrested, and perhaps bail bonds filed for his provisional release, and in case of conviction in the Municipal Court, the cases would have to be elevated to the Court of First Instance for another trial, with the possibility that the hearing may again be postponed once or twice, or even more for the reason that, we understand, the trial court does not hold sessions continuously in one place throughout the year. On the other hand, to reinstate these two cases would be beneficial to both prosecution and defendants without materially impairing the rights and interests of the accused, because if he is innocent, he would sooner be cleared of these two charges.
In view of the foregoing, the order of dismissal is set aside and these two cases are hereby remanded to the trial court with instructions to have the same tried as soon as possible, with due notification to the parties of the date of trial. No costs.
Padilla, Bautista Angela, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.