Aguinaldo vs Ventus

On December 2, 2002, private respondents Reynaldo P. Ventus and Jojo B. Joson filed a Complaint-
Affidavit for estafa against petitioners Aguinaldo and Perez before the Office of the City Prosecutor
(OCP) of Manila. Both parties were business partners in financing casino players.

Private respondents alleged that sometime in March and April 2002, petitioners connived in convincing
them to part with their Two Hundred Sixty Thousand (P260,000.00) Pesos in consideration of a pledge of
two motor vehicles which the latter had misrepresented to be owned by Aguinaldo, but turned out to
be owned by one Levita De Castro, manager/operator of LEDC Rent-A-Car.

Perez denied accusation and claimed that he only introduced the parties to each other; respondents on
the other hand alleged that Perez was the one who showed them the photocopies of registration of the
motor vehicles. Perez claimed that it never happened because respondents were informed that said
vehicles were only leased.

(Okay lang ata na dito magstart iyong digest pero para sure nilagay ko na iyong details nung estafa case
sa taas)

An information for estafa was filed with RTC. Perez was arrested. Perez filed an Urgent Motion for
Reduction of Bail, which was granted; then filed a Very Urgent Motion to Recall the Warrants of Arrest.

Petitioners jointly filed with the OCP of Manila their Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for the
Withdrawal of the Information Prematurely Filed With the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, City of Manila.

The public respondent issued an Order granting the motion for withdrawal of information, and directing
the recall of the arrest warrant only insofar as Aguinaldo was concerned, pending resolution of her
motion for reconsideration with the OCP.

Petitioners filed Urgent Motion for Cancellation of Arraignment, pending resolution of the Motion for
Reconsideration filed with the OCP. Public Respondent ordered arraignment to be deferred until
Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration; case was archived pending resolution of the MR.

OCP filed a motion to set case for trial; denying the motion for reconsideration and withdrawal of
information. Petitioners filed with DOJ a petition for review. Petitioners filed an Urgent Motion to Cancel
Arraignment and Suspend Further Proceedings until Petition before DOJ is resolved with finality, which
was granted.

Levita de Castro filed a motion to reinstate the case and to issue warrant of arrest claiming that DOJ
already promulgated the resolution denying the petition for review and she was the private complainant
in the estafa case. Public Respondent granted the motion and issued warrants of arrest.

Petitioners claim that the court erred in reinstating the case and they were deprive of due process
because the 60 day limit on the suspension of arraignment is merely directory.

Issue:

A PROCEDURAL TECHINICALITY THAT THE SUSPENSION ALLOWED FOR ARRAIGNMENT IS ALREADY

BEYOND THE 60-DAY PERIOD MAY BE RELAXED IN THE INTEREST OF AN ORDERLY AND SPEEDY
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Held:

The Court disagrees with petitioners; contention that the provision of Section 11 (c), Rule 116 of the
Rules of Court limiting the suspension for arraignment to only sixty (60) days is merely directory; thus,
the estafa case against them cannot proceed until the DOJ resolves their petition for review with finality.

In Samson v. Judge Daway, the Court explained that while the pendency of a petition for review is a
ground for suspension of the arraignment, the aforecited provision limits the deferment of the
arraignment to a period of 60 days reckoned from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office. It
follows, therefore, that after the expiration of said period, the trial court is bound to arraign the accused
or to deny the motion to defer arraignment.