Short Title Lumawlaw vs.
Judge Peralta
G.R. No. 164953
Date February 13, 2006
Ponente Panganiban, CJ.
PRINCIPLE: (Optional)
Vexatious, oppressive, unjustified and capricious delays in the arraignment
violates the constitutional right to speedy trial and speedy case disposition,
particularly when the accused is detained.
FACTS:
Petitioner Lumanlaw was charged with illegal possession of a dangerous drug
in November 2002. He was detained in the Manila City Jail by virtue of a
Commitment Order. From the time of his arrest in 2002 up to the filing of the instant
Petition in 2004, his arraignment was postponed a total of 14 times for various
reasons, such as the absence of petitioner’s counsel, the trial judge’s unavailability,
and the jail warden’s failure to bring him to court.
These postponements resulted in his detention for almost two years, without
the benefit of an arraignment. Thus, he filed two Motions to Dismiss the Information
against him, on the ground that his right to speedy trial had been violated. Both
Motions were denied by respondent judge.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Mandamus under Rule 65, arguing that
respondent’s failure to act expeditiously on his arraignment violated his right to
speedy trial and justified the dismissal of the charge against him.
ISSUE:
Whether there was a violation of the petitioner’s right to speedy trial.
HELD:
Yes, the petitioner’s right to speedy trial was violated.
The Supreme Court reviewed the reasons for the postponements in the case
and found that the violation of petitioner’s right to speedy trial was manifest, given
the length and the unreasonableness of a majority of the delays. It saw in the
fourteen (14) postponements a lack of earnest effort on the part of respondent to
conduct the arraignment as soon as the court calendar allowed.
An arraignment takes, at most, ten minutes of the court’s business and does
not normally entail legal gymnastics. It consists simply of reading to accused persons
the charges leveled against them, ensuring their understanding of those charges,
and obtaining their plea to the charges. A prudent and resolute judge can conduct an
arraignment as soon as the accused is presented before the court. For this reason
alone, the high tribunal was astonished that the lower court could not complete this
simple but fundamental stage in the proceedings.
The Court held that, under the given circumstances, respondent failed to
assert his authority actively, so as to expedite the proceedings. He allowed the
listlessness of the parties, his staff, and the jail wardens to dictate the pace of the
proceedings. As further aggravation, he did not exert any effort to expedite the
arraignment even after petitioner had filed two urgent Motions to Dismiss.
In this case, the Court GRANTED the Petition for Mandamus and DISMISSED
the criminal case pending before the RTC.
