GR L 56492; (January, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-56492. January 30, 1982.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. GIBSON A. ARAULA, Presiding Judge, CFI of Southern Leyte, and LIM LON SING, respondents.
FACTS
An Information for Attempted Murder was filed against Lim Lon Sing. At the scheduled hearing, the private prosecutor and witnesses were present, but the prosecuting fiscal, Pedro Felicen, Jr., was absent. The defense counsel moved for the provisional dismissal of the case, invoking the accused’s right to a speedy trial. Respondent Judge immediately granted the motion and dictated an order of provisional dismissal in open court. Shortly thereafter, the court received a telegram from Fiscal Felicen, sent days prior, requesting a postponement due to his illness. The judge did not recall his dismissal order. Upon his return, the fiscal filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching a medical certificate and explaining the telegraphic request. The judge denied the motion, ruling it was filed beyond the reglementary period and, significantly, declaring that the provisional dismissal was equivalent to an acquittal.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the provisional dismissal of the criminal case and subsequently deeming it an acquittal, thereby barring the revival of the case on grounds of double jeopardy.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the challenged orders. The Court ruled that the dismissal was capricious and violated the State’s right to due process. The fiscal’s absence was justified by a valid medical reason, and his telegraphic request for postponement, though received after the order was dictated, was timely sent and constituted a sufficient explanation. The judge’s failure to consider this and his immediate dismissal of the case upon the mere motion of the defense, without granting the prosecution an opportunity to be heard on the request for postponement, constituted a denial of the prosecution’s day in court. A dismissal invalid for lack of due process is null and void. Consequently, such an invalid dismissal cannot give rise to a valid claim of double jeopardy. The provisional dismissal, being void, did not amount to an acquittal. The case was ordered reinstated for trial on the merits. The temporary restraining order preventing the accused from leaving the country was made permanent pending the case’s final outcome.