G.R. No. L-7251. October 18, 1954

The fiscal of Surigao has appealed from the order of the court of
that province dismissing the information charging Irenea Alipao with
oral defamation.

The matter originated from the justice of the peace court, wherein a
fine had been imposed. The defendant appealed. The corresponding
information was filed in the higher court, later substituted by an
amended information.

When in the morning of July 2, 1952, the case was called for
hearing, the prosecution moved for postponement, the complaining
witness being absent because there was a typhoon on that day. The court
adverting to the presence of the accused and her witnesses and the
right of defendants to speedy trial, denied the postponement, and
dismissed the proceeding. A motion to reconsider failed. Hence this
appeal, which may be entertained, because, at least it does not appear
that the accused had pleaded to the information. The order of dismissal
reads as follows:

“The Provincial Fiscal moves, for the postponement of
the trial of this case on the ground that his witnesses have failed to
come because there is now a typhoon. The defense objects to the motion
for postponement on the ground that the accused and her witnesses are
from the same place as the complaining witness and other witnesses for
the prosecution; but in spite of this fact said accused and said
witnesses have come and there is no reason why the witnesses for the
prosecution should not have come.

The accused is entitled to
a speedy trial. She has come with her witnesses inspite of the
inclement weather. There is no reason why the trial of this case should
be postponed.

Wherefore, this case is hereby dismissed with costs de oficio and the bail bond of the accused, release.”

There is no question that postponements are discretionary with the
court. However, as the fiscal alleged in his motion to reconsider, in
the afternoon of July 1, 1952 the local station of the Weather Bureau
issued a warning to the public of a storm approaching Surigao, with
strong winds expected the following day; the next day at 8 a.m. another
typhoon warning was published, announcing that Surigao would be lashed
by the typhoon between eleven and 2 at noon “today”; there were strong
winds and heavy rains that blew down some houses; and because of the
weather the complainant and her two witnesses, who resided in barrio
Rizal and had small children, could not appear in court.

Under the circumstances, we believe the continuance should have been granted considering it was for the first time
asked by the Government. The court’s concern for the defendant’s right
to speedy trial is commendable; but it should not be carried to the
extreme of practically denying the prosecution its day in court for
causes beyond its control.

That the accused had come from the same place where the complainant
lived, is not conclusive. The judge was advised that whereas the
accused had no children, the complainant had several small boys to take
care of. And the condition of their respective dwellings—in relation to
the stormy weather —does not appear. The presence of complainant’s
husband—pointed out by defense—is no reason to say that she could have
come if she wanted. A man may be willing to face consequences which it
is unfair to require a woman to face. That the judge and the court
personnel were in court, may be due either to their high degree of
sense of duty or to the sturdiness of the Government buildings. A
mother out in the barrio, will hesitate to go to town five kilometers
distant, knowing the probability of being overtaken by the storm, and
of finding no means of transportation. Wherefore, the order of
dismissal will be reversed, and the record will be remanded for further
proceedings. So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.