G.R. No. 192898; January 31, 2011
SPOUSES ALEXANDER TRINIDAD and CECILIA TRINIDAD, Petitioners, vs. VICTOR ANG, Respondent.

FACTS

On September 3, 2007, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Masbate City recommended filing an Information for Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against petitioners Spouses Alexander and Cecilia Trinidad. Petitioners filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ) on October 10, 2007. On March 3, 2009, the Information was filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Masbate. The MTCC, applying the Rules on Summary Procedure, ordered petitioners to submit counter-affidavits. Petitioners filed a Motion to Defer Arraignment and Proceedings, citing the pending DOJ petition for review. The MTCC initially granted the motion on May 28, 2009, but later reconsidered and set arraignment on August 10, 2009. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which was denied in a decision dated January 6, 2010. Their motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC in an order dated July 5, 2010. Petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court initially denied this petition due to failure to state the material dates of receipt of the RTC order and filing of the motion for reconsideration, as required by the Rules of Court. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of that denial.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the motion for reconsideration and reinstate the petition, and ultimately, whether the RTC correctly ruled that the MTCC did not err in setting the arraignment after the lapse of more than 60 days from the filing of the petition for review with the DOJ.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the motion for reconsideration and reinstated the petition for review on certiorari. The Court found that a careful examination showed the petition did state the date of receipt of the RTC order, and the failure to state the date of filing the motion for reconsideration was a formal defect warranting relaxation of the rules in the interest of justice.
However, on the merits, the Supreme Court DENIED the reinstated petition, finding no reversible error in the challenged RTC order. The Court held that under Section 11, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the suspension of arraignment due to a pending petition for review with the DOJ is limited to a period not exceeding sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition. Since petitioners filed their DOJ petition on October 10, 2007, and the MTCC set arraignment on August 10, 2009—a lapse of 1 year and 10 months—the period far exceeded the 60-day limit. The cases cited by petitioners (Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. How, Roberts, Jr. v. CA, and Dimatulac v. Villon) were decided prior to the December 1, 2000 amendment of the Rules which introduced the 60-day limit, and were thus inapplicable. Therefore, the MTCC correctly proceeded with the arraignment, and the RTC correctly denied the petition for certiorari.