G.R. No. L-15776 September 26, 1961
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ADOLFO SAEZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

This case involves a post-conviction proceeding. In a prior resolution dated May 12, 1961, the Supreme Court required the Solicitor General to file an answer to the appellant Adolfo Saez’s motion for reconsideration and/or new trial. The appellant’s motion was based on alleged newly discovered evidence, specifically an affidavit or confession by one Roman Catian. The Court granted two extensions of time requested by the Solicitor General’s office to file the required answer.
The last granted extension expired thirty days from July 3, 1961. In his final motion for extension, the Solicitor General explained the delay, stating that his office had requested the Chief of the Philippine Constabulary to conduct an investigation. This investigation pertained to the alleged willful suppression by Constabulary authorities in Davao of the Catian affidavit, which formed the core of the appellant’s claim for a new trial. Despite the granted extensions and the stated reason for the delay, the Solicitor General failed to submit the required answer to the Court by the time of this resolution.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should take further action to compel the Solicitor General to comply with its directive to file an answer to the appellant’s motion for reconsideration and/or new trial, given the prolonged delay and failure to file despite granted extensions.

RULING

The Supreme Court issued a resolution requiring the Solicitor General to formally state his intention regarding the filing of the answer. The Court noted the significant lapse of time since the filing of the appellant’s motion and the Solicitor General’s failure to comply with the Court’s order despite the extensions granted. The legal logic is rooted in the Court’s inherent power to control its processes and ensure the orderly administration of justice. While the Solicitor General provided an explanation involving an ongoing investigation into potential suppression of evidence, the Court could not allow the matter to remain pending indefinitely without a status update or final action from the government’s counsel.
The resolution serves as a procedural directive to compel a definitive response, thereby preventing undue delay in the disposition of the appellant’s post-conviction plea. It balances the government’s need to investigate serious allegations with the judicial system’s imperative for timely resolution. The Court did not rule on the merits of the motion for new trial but took a necessary administrative step to advance the proceedings, ordering the Solicitor General to state for the record, within five days, whether he intended to file the answer. This ensures the case progresses and the Court can thereafter make a final determination on the appellant’s motion based on a complete record.