GR 108478 79; (February, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 108478-79 February 21, 1994
ESTELITA HIPOLITO and ALFREDO BOLSICO, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION), THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 18, MALOLOS, BULACAN and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
On November 4, 1990, Patrolman Celso Reyes and Brgy. Captain Pedro Panganiban were killed, and Armando Vitug was wounded in an ambush. After an investigation, petitioners Estelita Hipolito and Alfredo Bolsico, along with others, were charged with murder and frustrated murder. The Municipal Trial Court found probable cause and ordered detention. The Provincial Prosecutor, however, ordered the accused’s release. The Department of Justice designated State Prosecutor Santiago Turingan, who found probable cause and filed formal charges on March 13, 1991, at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos. Warrants of arrest were issued. The accused filed motions to defer arrest and for bail. On May 17, 1991, the RTC, after quashing the warrants and finding probable cause, ex mero motu granted bail without a hearing and without a pending petition for bail. The prosecution filed an omnibus motion to cancel bail and issue warrants, arguing bail cannot be granted in a capital offense without a hearing to determine if evidence of guilt is strong. The RTC denied this, stating its orders were final. The prosecution filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA). Petitioners also filed a certiorari petition with the CA, seeking dismissal of the cases for violation of their right to a speedy trial due to numerous postponements. The CA consolidated the petitions. On July 31, 1992, the CA granted the prosecution’s petition, annulled the RTC’s orders granting bail, and ordered the arrest of the accused, allowing them to file a proper petition for bail after arrest. It dismissed petitioners’ speedy trial petition, finding the delays unavoidable. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on November 25, 1992. Petitioners then filed the present petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that there was no violation of petitioners’ right to a speedy trial.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in the manner by which it dismissed petitioners’ petition.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals’ decision dated July 31, 1992 is a proper subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
RULING
The petition is DISMISSED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 31, 1992 and its resolution dated November 25, 1992 are AFFIRMED.
1. On the right to a speedy trial: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the CA. The constitutional right to a speedy trial is intended to free the innocent from anxiety and expense, or to determine guilt quickly. However, it cannot be used to deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity to prosecute. The delays cited by petitioners (postponements in October, November 1991, and January 1992) were due to the pendency of the prosecution’s omnibus motion (which raised a fundamental issue on the irregular grant of bail) and the illness of the State Prosecutor. The CA correctly characterized these delays as unavoidable and reasonable. The prosecution was consistently ready, with witnesses present, but could not proceed due to the assigned prosecutor’s illness. The defense’s claim of violation was unfounded.
2. On the propriety of the petition for certiorari under Rule 65: The Supreme Court held that the present petition was improper. The CA decision was final and appealable. Petitioners received notice of the denial of their motion for reconsideration on December 7, 1992, and had until December 22, 1992, to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. They failed to do so and instead filed this Rule 65 petition on January 28, 1993. Certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal, especially when the loss is due to the petitioner’s own neglect in choosing remedies. Since the remedy by appeal was lost, certiorari under Rule 65 does not lie.