GR L 7251; (October, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-7251 October 18, 1954
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. IRENEA ALIPAO, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The Provincial Fiscal of Surigao appealed an order from the Court of First Instance dismissing an information charging Irenea Alipao with oral defamation. The case originated from a justice of the peace court where a fine was imposed, and the defendant appealed. An amended information was filed in the higher court. On the morning of July 2, 1952, when the case was called for hearing, the prosecution moved for postponement because the complaining witness was absent due to a typhoon on that day. The court, noting the presence of the accused and her witnesses and the right to a speedy trial, denied the postponement and dismissed the proceeding. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The prosecution’s motion to reconsider alleged that on July 1, 1952, the local Weather Bureau issued a storm warning, and on July 2 at 8 a.m., another warning announced Surigao would be lashed by the typhoon between eleven and two at noon that day, with strong winds and heavy rains that blew down some houses. The complainant and her two witnesses, residing in barrio Rizal and having small children, could not appear due to the weather.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the prosecution’s motion for postponement and dismissing the case.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the record for further proceedings. The Court held that while postponements are discretionary with the court, the continuance should have been granted under the circumstances as it was the first time asked by the Government and the cause was beyond the prosecution’s control. The court’s concern for the defendant’s right to a speedy trial should not be carried to the extreme of practically denying the prosecution its day in court. The fact that the accused came from the same place as the complainant was not conclusive, as the judge was advised the accused had no children while the complainant had several small boys to take care of, and the condition of their respective dwellings in relation to the storm was not shown. The presence of the complainant’s husband did not mean she could have come, and the presence of court personnel may have been due to a high sense of duty or the sturdiness of government buildings. A mother in the barrio would hesitate to travel five kilometers to town with a storm approaching.