SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246682. January 22, 2020.]
BENHUR D. UYCO, petitioner, vs.KELLYN CONDE SY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated22 January 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246682 (Benhur D. Uyco v. Kellyn Conde Sy). — The Court resolves to: (a)GRANT respondent Kellyn Conde Sy's (respondent) motion for extension of fifteen (15) days from October 6, 2019 within which to file comment on the petition; and (b)NOTE the comment/opposition dated October 18, 2019 in compliance with the Resolution dated July 24, 2019.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court further resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the October 12, 2018 Decision 2 and the April 11, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 150685 for failure of petitioner Benhur D. Uyco (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in: (a) granting respondent's petition for certiorari4 before it; (b) reinstating her complaint 5 before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 261 (RTC); and (c) ordering it to proceed with the reception of the prosecution's evidence-in-chief. 6 aScITE
As correctly ruled by the CA, the RTC's dismissal of the case ostensibly on the ground of violation of petitioner's right to speedy trial was premature, considering that: (a) the postponements of the hearing were not solely attributable to the prosecution; 7(b) since the prosecution asked for two (2) postponements of the hearing, it still had one (1) more setting to present its evidence-in-chief; 8 and (c) the presence of respondent in the arraignment, pre-trial, and trial on the merits was not necessary since she was regarded merely as a witness for the state. 9 Thus, it cannot be said that there was unreasonable, vexatious, and oppressive delay that was violative of the said right. 10
SO ORDERED. (Reyes, A., Jr. and Hernando, JJ., on official leave.)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-25.
2.Id. at 27-34. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of this Court) with Associate Justices Jhosep Y. Lopez and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, concurring.
3.Id. at 36-37. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, concurring.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5. Not attached to the rollo.
6. See rollo, p. 33.
7. See id. at 31.
8. See id.
9. See id. at 32.
10. In the determination of whether or not that right has been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are: (a) the length of the delay the reasons for such delay; (b) reason for the delay; (c) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and (d) the prejudice caused by the delay. (See Tan v. People, 604 Phil. 68, 80 [2009].)