Ivler vs San Pedro

G.R. No. 172716 November 17, 2010

Facts:
Petitioner Ivler was charged with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries
and Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property before the MeTC.
Petitioner posted bail for his temporary release in both cases.

Petitioner pleaded guilty with the charged of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight
Physical Injuries and was penalized of public censure. Invoking this conviction, petitioner
moved to quash the Information in the second criminal case for placing him in jeopardy of
second punishment for the same offense of reckless imprudence. The MeTC refused quashal,
finding no identity of offenses in the two cases. Petitioner elevated the matter to the RTC
and filed a motion to suspend criminal proceeding and arraignment on the ground of
prejudicial question before the MeTC. Without acting on his motion, the MeTC proceeded for
his arraignment and cancelled his bailbond and ordered for his immediate arrest for failure
to attend the hearing. Seven days later, the MeTC issued a resolution denying petitioners
motion to suspend proceedings and postponing his arraignment until after his arrest.
Petitioner sought reconsideration but as of the filing of this petition, the motion remained
unresolved.

Relying on his arrest, the RTC dismissed petitioners motion for petitioners loss of standing
to maintain the suit. Petitioner contested the motion. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
WON petitioners failure to appear at his arraignment forfeited his standing to seek relief.

Held:
The SC ruled that the petitioners non-appearance at his arraignment does not divest him of
personality to maintain the suit.

Under Section 21, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendants
absence merely renders his bondsman potentially liable on its bond (subject to cancellation
should the bondsman fail to produce the accused within 30 days); the defendant retains his
standing and, should he fail to surrender, will be tried in absentia and could be convicted or
acquitted. Indeed, the 30-day period granted to the bondsman to produce the accused
underscores the fact that mere non-appearance does not ipso facto convert the accuseds
status to that of a fugitive without standing.

Further, the RTCs observation that petitioner provided "no explanation why he failed to
attend the scheduled proceeding at the MeTC is belied by the records. Days before the
arraignment, petitioner sought the suspension of the MeTCs proceedings in Criminal Case
No. 82366 in light of his petition with the RTC in S.C.A. No. 2803. Following the MeTCs
refusal to defer arraignment (the order for which was released days after the MeTC ordered
petitioners arrest), petitioner sought reconsideration. His motion remained unresolved as of
the filing of this petition.