Montilla v. Arellano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An information for homicide was filed against Carlos M. Molina. When the case was called for trial, the accused and his counsel were late due to muddy roads. Upon motion of the prosecution, the respondent Judge ordered the accused's arrest and bond confiscation. Immediately thereafter, the accused and his counsel appeared. The counsel explained the delay and moved for reconsideration. The respondent Judge set aside the arrest and confiscation order and imposed a P5.00 fine. Procedural History: The trial was set to proceed with the prosecution presenting its first witness, a doctor from Iloilo. The accused's counsel manifested that he was not ready for trial, citing his recent engagement by the accused, his lack of time to review the records, and his citation to appear as a witness in another case. The respondent Judge insisted on proceeding, stating the witness was technical and the counsel could read the information. The counsel attempted to withdraw his appearance, but the Judge denied it, threatening contempt. The information was read to the accused, who pleaded not guilty. The Judge then ordered the prosecution's witness to take the stand. The Petition: Petitioner Carlos A. Montilla filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, assailing the respondent Judge's order to proceed with the trial despite the accused's counsel's manifestation of unpreparedness and request for time to prepare, thereby allegedly violating the accused's constitutional right to due process.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in proceeding with the trial over the objection of the accused's counsel who claimed unpreparedness. Whether certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the alleged error of the respondent Judge.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The Court held that while the respondent Judge erred in proceeding with the trial over the objection of the accused's counsel, this error was an error of judgment, not an error of jurisdiction. Therefore, the proper remedy is appeal, not certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the respondent Judge's error in proceeding with the trial: The Court found that the respondent Judge erred in allowing the taking of the doctor's testimony over the objection of the defendant's counsel. This violated the defendant's constitutional right to due process, specifically the right to have at least two days to prepare for trial as provided in Rule 114, Section 7 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that the denial of this right is a reversible error and a ground for a new trial, citing previous jurisprudence. The Court rejected the respondent Judge's contention that the accused or his attorney did not expressly move for postponement, stating that the counsel's manifestation of being "not ready" clearly indicated a desire for the trial to be put off to another date. The Court noted that the respondent Judge seemed determined to proceed with the trial regardless of the wording of the motion. On the issue of whether certiorari is the proper remedy: The Court, by an overwhelming majority, held that while the respondent Judge committed an error, he acted within his jurisdiction. Therefore, the error could only be attacked by appeal, and not by a special civil action for certiorari. The Court distinguished between an error of jurisdiction, which can be corrected by certiorari, and an error of judgment, which is subject to appeal. Since the respondent Judge had the authority to hear the case, his erroneous decision on the matter of postponement did not divest him of jurisdiction. The Court cited the principle that a trial without an opportunity to prepare, when mandated by law, is no trial at all, but concluded that this procedural defect should be raised on appeal.
Main Doctrine
The denial of the accused's constitutional right to at least two days to prepare for trial, as mandated by Rule 114, Section 7, is a reversible error and a ground for a new trial. However, a petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail such an error if the court acted within its jurisdiction; appeal is the appropriate recourse.