GR L 9638; (April, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9638; April 30, 1957
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ADELINA NABALUNA and ENRIQUETA CIOCON, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Adelina Nabaluna and Enriqueta Ciocon were charged in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental with inducing a minor to abandon home. They were found guilty and sentenced. The accused appealed. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court as only a question of law was involved. The appellants contended the lower court erred in compelling them to proceed to trial on May 28, 1952, and in denying their motion for a two-day preparation period after pleading not guilty. When the case was first called on May 26, 1952, a postponement was granted because Nabaluna had no attorney and Ciocon’s lawyer was absent, with the court warning that no further postponements would be granted. On May 28, 1952, the accused appeared with Atty. Jose Arroyo, who formally entered his appearance for both. After a plea of not guilty, counsel moved for postponement, requesting at least two days to prepare, as his services were secured only at about 8:30 a.m. on the trial day. The court denied the motion, citing its prior warning. The prosecution presented three witnesses, but defense counsel desisted from cross-examination due to unpreparedness. After the prosecution rested, the court set the continuation for May 31, 1952, for the defense evidence. On that date, defense counsel manifested his lack of preparation, stating the denial of his motion had adversely affected the defense theory and he was unable to cross-examine witnesses. He submitted the case without presenting evidence, and the accused agreed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed reversible error in denying the accused’s motion for at least two days to prepare for trial after pleading not guilty, in violation of Section 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the decision and remanded the case for retrial. The Court held that the requirement of Section 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, which entitles a defendant to at least two days to prepare for trial after a plea of not guilty (except on appeal from a justice of the peace), is mandatory. A denial of this right is a reversible error and a ground for a new trial. The appellee (the People) agreed with the appellants that the trial court committed reversible error. The Court cited precedent, including People vs. Mejares, et al., affirming that this right is mandatory and its denial warrants a new trial.