GR L 3757; (July, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3757 July 12, 1951
CARLOS A. MONTILLA, petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, respondent.
FACTS
An information for homicide was filed against Carlos M. Molina. When the case was called for trial on March 15, 1950, the accused and his counsel, Attorney Remigio M. Peña, were not initially present. The court, upon the prosecution’s motion, ordered the accused’s arrest and bond confiscation. Upon their late arrival, counsel explained the delay due to muddy roads. The court set aside its order and instead fined the accused. When asked if ready for trial, counsel stated they were not ready because it was the first time the case was called for trial and he was scheduled as a witness in another sala. The prosecution insisted on presenting its witness, a doctor from Iloilo, to avoid prejudice. Counsel repeatedly manifested he was unprepared, having been engaged only a few days prior, had not reviewed the record, and was not ready to cross-examine. He even moved to withdraw his appearance, which the court denied, threatening contempt. The court proceeded to arraign the accused, enter a not guilty plea, and call the prosecution’s witness over counsel’s objections.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the trial and allowing the taking of the prosecution witness’s testimony over the objection of the accused’s counsel, who invoked the accused’s right to at least two days to prepare for trial under Section 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
The Court unanimously held that the respondent judge erred in allowing the taking of the doctor’s testimony over the defendant’s objection, as it violated the defendant’s constitutional right to due process. The Court emphasized that under Section 7, Rule 114, an accused who pleads not guilty is entitled as a right to at least two days to prepare for trial, and denial of this right is a reversible error. However, an overwhelming majority of the Court held that the judge acted within his jurisdiction, albeit erroneously. Consequently, the error was not correctible by certiorari but only by appeal. The petition for certiorari was dismissed on this ground, without costs. The parties were advised to pursue any charges against each other through separate complaints as provided by the Rules of Court.