GR 142961; (August, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 142961 , August 4, 2006
RHODA REGINA REYES-RARA and JOSE EMMANUEL RARA, Petitioners, vs. BRENDA CHAN, People of the Philippines and Hon. Marciano bacalla, presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 126, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Rhoda Regina Reyes-Rara and Jose Emmanuel Rara were charged with estafa. During the preliminary investigation, they repeatedly failed to appear and submit their counter-affidavit despite granted opportunities, leading the prosecutor to find probable cause and file an Information. Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration with the prosecutor and, subsequently, an appeal to the Secretary of Justice. They sought to defer their arraignment in the trial court based on these pending reviews.
The trial court initially granted a deferment but later denied subsequent motions, proceeding with the arraignment and setting the case for trial. Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which issued a temporary restraining order (TRO). However, the Secretary of Justice later dismissed their appeal pursuant to a department order authorizing dismissal if the accused is arraigned during the appeal’s pendency. With the TRO lapsed and the appeal dismissed, the trial court ordered the trial to proceed.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions to defer arraignment and in ordering the trial to proceed.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the discretionary nature of suspending arraignment due to a pending petition for review. While Section 11(c) of Rule 116 allows for suspension, it is not mandatory and is subject to the trial court’s sound discretion, considering the circumstances of each case.
Here, the petitioners’ own procedural delays during the preliminary investigation—their failure to submit a counter-affidavit despite opportunities—weighed against granting a deferment. The Court emphasized that a motion to suspend arraignment is not a matter of right. Furthermore, at the time the trial court issued the order to proceed with trial, the legal obstacles had been removed: the TRO from the Court of Appeals had expired, and the Department of Justice had already dismissed the petitioners’ appeal. Therefore, there was no more legal impediment to continuing with the trial. The trial court’s actions were a proper exercise of judicial discretion and not characterized by caprice or arbitrariness. The petition was denied, and the Court of Appeals’ decision was affirmed.