SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242445. November 12, 2018.]
RODOLFO G. MENDOZA, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND UNITED PACIFIC CAPITAL CORPORATION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated12 November 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242445 (Rodolfo G. Mendoza v. People of the Philippines and United Pacific Capital Corporation)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the January 26, 2018 Decision 2 and the October 3, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 148119 for failure of petitioner Rodolfo G. Mendoza (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in annulling and setting aside the February 22, 2016 Decision 4 and the June 30, 2016 Order 5 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 142, which dismissed the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by public respondent People of the Philippines (respondent) to assail the November 26, 2014 Order 6 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 62 (MeTC), dismissing the case against petitioner for failure to prosecute and violation of his right to speedy trial.
As correctly ruled by the CA, "a dismissal grounded on the denial of the right of the accused to speedy trial has the effect of acquittal that would bar the further prosecution of the accused for the same offense." 7 Thus, the November 26, 2014 Order of the MeTC grounded on the denial of petitioner's right to speedy trial is a final order that is not appealable and is immediately executory. 8 However, the remedy of certiorari may be availed of to prove that the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the order of dismissal, 9 which obtains in this case. Indubitably, there were only three (3) instances when the prosecution's prayer for the resetting of the scheduled hearings were granted, all of which were justified without any objection on the part of petitioner or his counsel. 10 Accordingly, there was no violation of petitioner's right to speedy trial and the criminal case against him was correctly ordered to be reinstated. DETACa
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-19.
2.Id. at 20-29. Penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring.
3.Id. at 37-38. Penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring.
4.Id. at 53-57. Penned by Presiding Judge Dina Pestaño Teves.
5.Id. at 58.
6.Id. at 52. Issued by Presiding Judge Ma. Concepcion A. Billiones.
7.Bonsubre, Jr. v. Yerro, 753 Phil. 653, 661 (2015), citing People v. Hernandez, 531 Phil. 289, 306 (2006). See also rollo, p. 24.
8. See rollo, id.
9. See id.
10. See id. at 27.