MARCELINO RIVERA, JR. v.

PEOPLE
G.R. No. 93219. August 30, 1990

FACTS:
On December 16, 1988, Marcelino G. Rivera, Jr. was arrested and detained for allegedly
transporting marijuana. Hence, a case for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against
him with the RTC of Baguio City, presided over by respondent Judge Marcelino F. Bautista. Rivera
was arraigned, and he entered his not guilty plea. A witness for the prosecution partially testified
and reserved the right to identify the marijuana specimen allegedly collected from Rivera.

The hearing was set, but due to the absence of any prosecution witness, despite notice and the non-
availability of the allegedly confiscated marijuana specimen, the hearing was postponed again. For
the same reasons, the hearing was again re-set. On the date of the hearing, the witness Forensic
Chemist who would present the marijuana specimen, despite notice failed to appear. Thus, Rivera,
through counsel then moved for the dismissal of the case which was denied by respondent Judge
and the hearing was re-set again for the fourth time.

On the 4th re-set, when the case was first called the witness, despite notice, was not around thereby
necessitating second call. On the 2 nd call, the witness was still not around. Thus, the counsel for
Rivera orally moved for the dismissal of the case invoking the right to a speedy trial as Rivera
stands confined and that the Government failed to prosecute or adduce evidence due to the non-
appearance of a vital prosecution witness. Judge Bautista verbally granted the motion and ordered
the immediate release of the accused.

However, less than an hour after the pronouncement of the verbal order, the witness for the
prosecution arrived. Upon a satisfactory explanation, the respondent Judge issued his now assailed
order setting aside his previous order of dismissal, and re-scheduled the case for continuation of
trial. Rivera alleged double jeopardy, and that the verbal order of dismissal was final and executory.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the verbal order dismissing the case final and executory.

RULING:
No, because the said order was never put into writing.

The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s contention was untenable. The verbal order of dismissal
of said case was withdrawn or set aside, as soon as it was dictated by respondent and before it
could be reduced to writing and signed by her. As a matter of fact, it was never put in writing.

Indeed, pursuant to the Rules of Court, `the judgment’ — and the order of dismissal in question had,
if completed, such effect — ‘must be written . . . personally and directly prepared by the judge, and
signed by him . . . .’ Here it is clear that the order was merely dictated in open court and not reduced
into writing as provided by Rule 120 Section 1 of the Rules of Court.

-Depalubos, Prince Lloyd