RAMON LOSEO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. ENRIQUE INTING, JUDGE OF THE CITY COURT OF DAVAO, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND/OR THE CITY ATTORNEY OF DAVAO AND RICARDO ALDEVERA, RE…

Petition for certiorari against the Hon.
Enrique Inting, Judge of the City Court of Davao, the City Attorney of Davao
and Ricardo Aldevera.

Petitioner Ramon Loseo was charged in
the City Court of Davao with slight physical injuries
(Criminal Case No. 844-B).  On the day
set for the trial thereof, because of the Fiscal’s
failure to appear, the case was dismissed “without prejudice to the filing
of a separate civil action” by the offended party.  The following day, on motion of the Fiscal,
the order of dismissal was lifted and the case was reset for trial in the
morning of August 29, 1963.  Three days before that date, counsel for
petitioner (the accused) filed an urgent motion for postponement.  The same having been granted, the court reset the case for trial on September 18, 1963.  On that date, petitioner was duly arraigned
and pleaded not guilty.  Immediately
thereafter, the trial was commenced, the petitioner, through counsel having
cross-examined all the prosecution witnesses. 
On that same date, after the prosecution had rested its case, the court reset the
case for the continuation of the
trial on October 14, 1963.  Again, six days before that date, petitioner,
through counsel, moved to postpone the continuation of the trial, in view of
which the court reset it on November 5 of the same year.

On October 18, 1963,
that is, 64 days after the court had lifted the order of dismissal, petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration of said order.  This was denied by the court on October 22, 1963.

When the case was again called for the continuation of the trial
on November 5, 1963,
petitioner, instead of presenting his evidence, moved that the continuation of
the trial be suspended on the ground that he had filed a petition for
certiorari against the respondent judge in connection with the case.  In view thereof, the respondent judge
suspended the continuation of the trial until after the resolution of the Court
of First Instance of Davao on the petition for
certiorari filed with it.  It is not
disputed that subsequently that court dismissed the action for certiorari
already mentioned for lack of merit.  Hence this appeal.

It is petitioner’s contention that the respondent judge erred in
not holding that the dismissal of the case on August 14, 1963 was immediately
final and executory, and that, as a consequence, His
Honor no longer had authority to lift the order of dismissal, nor to reinstate
the case.

It is not denied that the order of dismissal mentioned heretofore
was issued before petitioner, accused in Criminal Case
No. 844-B of the City Court of Davao, had been
arraigned.  The dismissal, therefore,
cannot be invoked to support the plea of double jeopardy.

Petitioner’s contention in this appeal that the City Fiscal of Davao, instead of asking the City Court of Davao to set aside the order of dismissal, should have
allowed it to stand, without prejudice to his re-filing the case with the same
court immediately, is a technicality that does not promote the speedy and
inexpensive administration of justice.  We
have heretofore repeatedly held that technicalities, when instead of promoting
the speedy administration of justice delay it, are not looked with favor.  More so in this case where it appears that
the setting aside of the order of dismissal caused petitioner no substantial
prejudice admitting as he does that he could have been made to face the same charge all over again in a
separate action.

WHEREFORE, the present appeal being entirely without
merit, the same is dismissed, with costs, and the City Court of Davao is hereby
ordered to immediately proceed to reset its
Criminal Case No. 844-B for continuation
of trial.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Ruiz Castro, J., took no part.