THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243497. February 13, 2019.]
EARL VINCENT G. CALMA, petitioner,vs. HON. MELINDA ALCONCEL-DAYANGHIRANG, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 54, DAVAO CITY AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 13, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243497 (Earl Vincent G. Calma v. Hon. Melinda Alconcel-Dayanghirang, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Davao City and The People of the Philippines). — Before us is a Petition for Certiorari with Application for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction (Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court) to set aside the: (a) Order 1 dated August 23, 2018 issued by public respondent Hon. Melinda Alconcel-Dayanghirang, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 54 (respondent), denying accused Earl Vincent G. Calma's (petitioner) Motion to Defer Further Proceedings and to Recall the Warrant of Arrest and/or to Hold in Abeyance the Service of the Warrant of Arrest against the Accused dated August 8, 2018 (Motion to Defer); and (b) Order 2 dated September 21, 2018, issued by herein respondent denying the Motion for Reconsideration of her Order dated September 12, 2018.
In her Order dated August 23, 2018, the respondent judge denied petitioner's Motion to Defer because of his counsel's failure to appear during the motion for hearing scheduled on said date. In addition, the abeyance prayed for by petitioner during the pendency of his petition for review filed with the Office of the Secretary of Justice should only last for a period of sixty (60) days from the date of the filing of the petition, pursuant to Department Circular No. 70 of the Department of Justice (DOJ). The respondent judge noted that the petition for review before the DOJ was filed on June 6, 2018.
The respondent judge also stressed that the petitioner remained at large and had not been brought to the jurisdiction of the Court, and that the sixty (60)-day period had already lapsed without any injunction enjoining her from issuing the warrant of arrest against herein petitioner. Petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration alleging error on the part of the RTC for dismissing his Motion to Defer, but the same was, likewise, denied in the RTC's Order 3 dated September 21, 2018.
Aggrieved, petitioner, through counsel, filed the present Petition for Certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent judge for denying the Motion to Defer against him, the accused, despite the alleged pendency of his Petition for Review before the Office of the Secretary of Justice. Hence, this case.
The Court resolves to deny the petition for its failure to show any reversible error in the assailed RTC Orders. The grounds for suspension of arraignment are provided under Section 11, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
SEC. 11. Suspension of Arraignment. — Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases:
(a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for such purpose;
(b) There exists a prejudicial question; and
(c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of the President; Provided, that the period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office.4
Citing the above-mentioned law and the DOJ Department Circular No. 70, the public respondent judge correctly ruled that the sixty (60)-day period to hold the proceedings in abeyance had already lapsed, since petitioner's counsel himself admitted that said petition was filed on June 6, 2018, or at least seventy-eight (78) days from the promulgation of the assailed Order dated August 23, 2018 denying petitioner's Motion to Defer.
Furthermore, the Court finds it appropriate to praise respondent judge for resolving the case in accordance with the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases, by denying any further delay and continuing the proceedings after the lapse of the fixed sixty (60)-day suspension period provided by the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed Orders dated August 23, 2018 and September 12, 2018 issued by respondent Hon. Melinda Alconcel-Dayanghirang, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Davao City are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 19.
2.Id. at 20.
3.Id.
4.Spouses Trinidad v. Ang, 656 Phil. 216, 220-221. (Emphasis supplied).