307 Solar Team Entertainment v. People - Revised

Mañago, Miguel Luisito G.
Mañago
SOLAR TEAM ENTERTAINMENT, INC, and PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES v. and HON. ROLANDO HOW, in his capacity as
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 257 of
Parañaque, and MA. FE F. BARREIRO
G.R. No. 140863, 22 August 2000, Third Division, Gonzaga-Reyes, J.
FACTS:
1. The City Prosecutor of Parañaque filed an Information on May
28, 1999. based on the complaint, for estafa against Ma Fe
Barreiro (private respondent) Solar Team Entertainment, Inc.
has filed a lawsuit (petitioner). The case was filed as Criminal
Case No. 99-536, "People of the Philippines vs. Ma. Fe F.
Barreiro," in the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City, Branch
257, under public respondent Judge Rolando G. How.
2. Respondent court issued an Order on June 29, 1999,
rescheduling private respondent's arraignment for September 2,
1999, on the grounds that she had "filed an appeal with the
Department of Justice (DOJ)." Private respondent manifested in
the same Order that she would submit a certification from the
DOJ granting due course to her appeal on or before the second
scheduled arraignment. On the 24th of September, 1999, he
respondent court denied petitioner's move for reconsideration of
the decision that had earlier reset private respondent's
arraignment. This order also rescheduled private's arraignment
to November 18, 1999.
3. On November 10, 1999, private respondent filed another
"Motion to Defer Arraignment," and respondent court issued an
order on November 15, 1999, before the scheduled date of
private respondent's arraignment and the date set for the
hearing of private respondent's "Motion to Defer Arraignment."
an Order deferring private respondent's arraignment "until such
time as the appeal with the said office (SOJ) is concluded,"
according to petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the order,
which was denied by respondent court on the 22nd of
November, 1999.
4. Petitioner bewails the fact that it has been six months since
private respondent arrived or surrendered herself to respondent
court's authority, and she has yet to be arraigned. The
challenged ruling was issued before petitioner had a copy of the
respondent's "Motion to Defer Arraignment" and before the
hearing on the same motion could be held, according to the
respondent court. Despite the fact that respondent court's
1
decision dated September 26, 1999 indicated that private
respondent's arraignment on November 18, 1999 is
"intransferable," petitioner contends that respondent court
issued the now-appealed order indefinitely suspending private
respondent's arraignment.
ISSUES:
I. Whether or not the respondent court erred in defying
section6, Rule 119 in accordance with section 12, rule 116,
of the revised rules on criminal procedure?
SUPREME COURT’S RULING:

I. SC: “The power of the Secretary of Justice to review
resolutions of his subordinates even after the information
has already been filed in court is well settled. In Marcelo vs.
Court of Appeals, reiterated in Roberts vs. Court of Appeals,
we clarified that nothing in Crespo vs. Mogul forecloses the
power or authority of the Secretary of Justice to review
resolutions of his subordinates in criminal cases despite an
information already having been filed in court.”
II. SC: “petitioner's argument that the suspension of the
arraignment in this case was in violation of Section 12, Rule
116 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure is likewise
not tenable. Section 12, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure provides that:
"SECTION 12. Suspension of Arraignment. — The
arraignment shall be suspended, if at the time thereof:
(a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound
mental condition which effectively renders him unable to
fully understand the case 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) The court finds the existence of a valid prejudicial
question."
III. SC: “There is nothing in the above-quoted provision that
expressly or impliedly mandates that the suspension of
arraignment shall be limited to the cases enumerated
therein. Moreover, jurisprudence has clearly established that
the suspension of arraignment is not strictly limited to the
two situations contemplated in said provision. In fine, no
grave abuse of discretion attended the issuance of the
assailed order suspending the arraignment of private
2
respondent until her petition for review with the Secretary of
Justice is resolved.

307 Solar Team Entertainment v. People - Revised

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

307 Solar Team Entertainment v. People - Revised

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

307 Solar Team Entertainment v. People - Revised

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mañago, Miguel Luisito G.

SOLAR TEAM ENTERTAINMENT, INC, and PEOPLE OF THE

SUPREME COURT’S RULING:

You might also like