G.R. No. 217456 , November 24, 2015
MARILOU S. LAUDE AND MESEHILDA S. LAUDE, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. ROLINE M. GINEZ-JABALDE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 74, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF THE CITY OF OLONGAPO; HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; HON. ALBERT F. DEL ROSARIO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS; HON. GEN. GREGORIO PIO P. CATAPANG, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; HON. EMILIE FE DELOS SANTOS, CHIEF CITY PROSECUTOR OF OLONGAPO CITY; AND L/CPL JOSEPH SCOTT PEMBERTON, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On October 11, 2014, Jeffrey “Jennifer” Laude was killed in Olongapo City allegedly by US Marine L/CPL Joseph Scott Pemberton. A complaint for murder was filed, and an Information was filed on December 15, 2014. Pemberton surrendered and was arraigned on December 19, 2014. On the same day, the petitioners (siblings of the victim) filed an “Urgent Motion to Compel the Armed Forces of the Philippines to Surrender Custody of Accused to the Olongapo City Jail,” setting the hearing for December 22, 2014. The petitioners claimed they served the motion on Pemberton’s counsel via registered mail and furnished a copy personally at the hearing. The trial court denied the motion on December 23, 2014, for lack of merit. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was also denied. The petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, arguing that the judge committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing their urgent motion based on mere technicalities, specifically non-compliance with the three-day notice rule under Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of Court and the lack of conformity from the Public Prosecutor. They argued the rule should be liberally applied due to exigent circumstances, the presence of parties at the hearing, and the transcendental importance of the issues concerning custody under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and victims’ rights. Pemberton and the public respondents countered that the judge correctly denied the motion due to procedural infirmities and that Pemberton’s detention in Camp Aguinaldo complied with the VFA.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners’ Urgent Motion to Compel the Surrender of Custody of the Accused for failure to comply with the three-day notice rule and for lack of conformity from the Public Prosecutor.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. The Court held that the trial court judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners failed to comply with the mandatory three-day notice rule for motions. The purpose of the rule is to give the adverse party a genuine opportunity to be heard, which was not satisfied as Pemberton’s counsel received the motion only minutes before the hearing. The Court also ruled that the conformity of the public prosecutor was required under Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as the criminal action had already been instituted and the prosecution was under the control of the public prosecutor. The petitioners’ arguments on the liberal application of procedural rules, transcendental importance, and human rights could not excuse strict compliance. Furthermore, the Court found that Pemberton was already detained within the Philippines in accordance with the provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement, and the petitioners failed to demonstrate any grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in its custody arrangement.