Facts:
On
November 12, 1993, petitioners Honorato Galvez, the incumbent Mayor of San
Ildefonso, Bulacan, and one Godofredo Diego were charged in three separate
informations with homicide and two counts of frustrated homicide for allegedly
shooting to death Alvin Calma Vinculado and seriously wounding Levi Calma
Vinculado and Miguel Reyes Vinculado, Jr.
On
December 15, 1993, before petitioners could be arraigned, respondent prosecutor
filed an Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw Informations of the original
informations. This motion was granted by Judge Villajuan also on December
15, 1993 and the cases were considered withdrawn from the docket of the court.
On the same day, Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio filed four new informations against
herein petitioners for murder, two counts of frustrated murder, and
violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 for illegal possession of firearms.
Thereafter,
a Motion
to Quash the new informations for lack of jurisdiction was filed by
petitioners before Judge Pornillos on January 3, 1994. At the court session set
for the arraignment of petitioners on January 24, 1994, Judge Pornillos issued
an order denying the motion to quash.
In
the meantime, and prior to the arraignment of herein petitioners before Judge
Pornillos, an order was issued on January 20, 1994 by Judge Villajuan granting
the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners, ordering the reinstatement of
the original informations, and setting the arraignment of the accused therein
for February 8, 1994. On said date, however, the arraignment was suspended and,
in the meanwhile, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus with respondent Court of Appeals, assailing the order dated January
24, 1994 issued by Judge Pornillos which denied petitioners’ motion to quash filed
for the new informations. As earlier stated, respondent court dismissed the
petition in its questioned resolution of February 18, 1994, hence this
petition.
Issue:
Whether
the ex parte motion to withdraw the original informations is null and void on
the ground that there was no notice and hearing as required by Sections 4, 5
and 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.
Held:
No,
considering that in the original cases before Branch 14 of the trial court
petitioners had not yet been placed in jeopardy, and the ex parte motion to
withdraw was filed and granted before they could be arraigned, there would be
no imperative need for notice and hearing thereof. In actuality, the real
grievance of herein accused is not the dismissal of the original three informations
but the filing of four new informations, three of which charge graver offenses
and the fourth, an additional offense. Had these new informations not been
filed, there would obviously have been no cause for the instant petition.
Accordingly, their complaint about the supposed procedural lapses involved in
the motion to dismiss filed and granted in Criminal Cases Nos. 3642-M-93 to
3644-M-93 does not impress us as a candid presentation of their real position.
Petitioner’s
contention that the dismissal of the original informations and the consequent
filing of the new ones substantially affected their right to bail is too
strained and tenuous an argument. They would want to ignore the fact that had
the original informations been amended so as to charge the capital offense of
murder, they still stood to likewise be deprived of their right to bail once it
was shown that the evidence of guilt is strong. Petitioners could not be better
off with amended informations than with the subsequent ones. It really made no
difference considering that where a capital offense is charged and the evidence
of guilt is strong, bail becomes a matter of discretion under either an amended
or a new information.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento