G.R. No. L-7862 May 17, 1955
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. MAXIMO ABAÑO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, et al., respondents.

FACTS

An information charging Zacarias Suñga with attempted rape was filed in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. During the trial on May 26 and 27, 1954, two prosecution witnesses testified. The trial was continued and set to resume on June 1. On May 31, the assistant provincial fiscal filed a petition for continuance because the complaining witness, Atanacia L. Mallare, was suffering from chololelithiasis and right ureterolithiasis and was confined in the Mary Chiles Hospital in Manila, supported by a verified medical certificate from Dr. Martin Santos. The respondent judge inquired about the ailment from the Director of the Provincial Hospital of Pampanga and directed the clerk to verify by telephone if the complainant was indeed confined at Mary Chiles Hospital, which was confirmed. Despite the fiscal’s objection that the complainant could not leave the hospital for two or three weeks, the judge set the resumption for June 12. On June 11, the fiscal moved for another continuance as the complainant was still sick and confined in the Sacred Heart Hospital in Manila. The trial was reset for June 15. On June 15, the private prosecutor moved for continuance again due to the complainant’s sickness and confinement. The motion was denied. Due to the prosecution’s inability to produce further evidence, defense counsel moved for dismissal. The prosecution announced its intention to file a petition for certiorari and injunction. After reserving his resolution on the motion to dismiss, the respondent judge dismissed the case on the same day. The prosecution filed this petition to annul the order denying the motion for continuance, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for continuance and subsequently dismissing the case.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion committed by the respondent judge. The judge took pains to inquire about the nature of the complainant’s ailment and granted continuances three times (on May 27, June 1, and June 12). The defendant was entitled to a speedy trial. When the prosecution failed to secure a continuance on June 15 and could not produce further evidence due to the complaining witness’s absence, the judge was justified in dismissing the case upon the defense’s motion. Even if the denial of the motion for continuance was an error, it did not amount to a grave abuse of discretion. An error by a competent court in ruling on interlocutory matters or deciding a case does not divest it of jurisdiction or render its ruling null and void. Furthermore, the defendant was already placed in jeopardy of punishment for the offense charged; annulling the order of dismissal would place him in double jeopardy. The petition for a writ of certiorari was denied, and the preliminary injunction issued to prevent the judge from further proceeding with the trial was dissolved.