SPOUSES !E"NDER TRINIDD ND #E#I!I TRINIDD, PETITIONERS, VS. VI#TOR NG, RESPONDENT. R E S O ! U T I O N $RION, J.% We resolve the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner spouses Alexander Trinidad and Cecilia Trinidad (petitioners) to challenge our Resolution of September 2! 2"#"$ %ur Resolution denied the petition for revie& on certiorari for its failure to state the material dates of receipt of the order '#( of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)! )ranch **! +asbate City! and of filing the motion for reconsideration! in violation of Sections *(b) '2( and ,! '-( Rule *,! in relation to Section ,(d)! '*( Rule ,. of the Rules of Court$ n&'(')'n& *a(&+ %n September -! 2""/! the %ffice of the City 0rosecutor! +asbate City! issued a Resolution recommending the filing of an 1nformation for 2iolation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against the petitioners$ %n %ctober #"! 2""/! the petitioners filed &ith the 3epartment of 4ustice (DOJ) a petition for revie& challenging this Resolution$ %n +arch -! 2""! the %ffice of the City 0rosecutor filed before the +unicipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)! 5ifth 4udicial Region! +asbate City! an 1nformation for 2iolation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against the petitioners$ As the case &as covered by the Rules on Summary 0rocedure! the +TCC ordered the petitioners to submit their counter affidavits and to appear in court &ithin #" days from receipt of the said order$ The petitioners filed a Manifestation and Motion to Defer Arraignment and Proceedings and Hold in Abeyance the Issance of !arrants of Arrest ',( praying! among others! for the deferment of their arraignment in vie& of the pendency of their petition for revie& before the 3%4$ The +TCC! in its %rder '.( dated +ay 26! 2""! granted the motion! 7sub8ect x x x to paragraph c'!( Section ##! Rule ##. of the Revised Rules of Criminal 0rocedure$7 %n August #"! 2""! the +TCC reconsidered this order! and set the petitioners9 arraignment on September #"! 2""$ '/( The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC! doc:eted as SCA ;o$ ",<2""$ The RTC! in its decision '6( of 4anuary .! 2"#"! denied this petition$ The petitioners moved to reconsider this decision! but the RTC denied their motion in its order '( dated 4uly ,! 2"#"$ The RTC held that the +TCC 8udge did not err in setting the arraignment of the petitioners after the lapse of one (#) year and ten (#") months from the filing of the petition for revie& &ith the 3%4$ 1t explained that the cases cited by the petitioners &ere decided before the amendment of the Revised Rules of Criminal 0rocedure$ After the amendment of the Rules on 3ecember #! 2"""! the Supreme Court applied the ."<day limit on suspension of arraignment in case of a pendency of a petition for revie& &ith the 3%4$ The petitioners filed &ith this Court a petition for revie& on certiorari essentially claiming that the ."<day limit on suspension of arraignment is only a general rule$ They cited several cases to sho& that the arraignment of an accused should be deferred until the petition for revie& &ith the 3%4 is resolved$ As earlier stated! &e denied the petition for its failure to state the material dates of receipt of the assailed RTC order and of filing the motion for reconsideration$ T,' -o&.on /or R'(on+.)'ra&.on 1n the present motion for reconsideration! the petitioners claim that the date of receipt of the assailed RTC order &as stated in the petition$ The petitioners further state that they filed the motion for reconsideration on 4anuary 2! 2"#"$ T,' #our&0+ Ru1.n2 We grant the motion for reconsideration and reinstate the petition for revie& oncertiorari$ A careful examination of the petition reveals that it stated the date &hen the petitioners received a copy of the RTC9s assailed order$ 1n addition! the petitioners9 failure to state the material date of filing the motion for reconsideration is only a formal re=uirement that &arrants the relaxation of the rules in accordance &ith the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of 8ustice$ N'3'r&,'1'++, 4' r'+o13' &o deny &,' 5'&.&.on /or .&+ /a.1ur' &o +,o4 any r'3'r+.61' 'rror .n &,' (,a11'n2') RT# or)'r$ The grounds for suspension of arraignment are provided under Section ##! Rule ##. of the Rules of Court! &hich provides> S?C$ ##$ "spension of Arraignment$ < @pon motion by the proper party! the arraignment shall be suspended in the follo&ing cases> (a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition &hich effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto$ 1n such case! the court shall order his mental examination and! if necessary! his confinement for such purposeA (b) There exists a pre8udicial =uestionA and (c) 5'&.&.on /or r'3.'4 o/ &,' r'+o1u&.on o/ &,' 5ro+'(u&or .+ 5'n).n2 a& '.&,'r &,' D'5ar&7'n& o/ Ju+&.(', or &,' O//.(' o/ &,' Pr'+.)'n&8 Provided, &,a& &,' 5'r.o) o/ +u+5'n+.on +,a11 no& '9('') +.9&y :;0< )ay+ (oun&') /ro7 &,' /.1.n2 o/ &,' 5'&.&.on 4.&, &,' r'3.'4.n2 o//.('. 1n "amson #$ Da%ay! '#"( the Court explained that &hile the pendency of a petition for revie& is a ground for suspension of the arraignment! the aforecited provision 1.7.&+ &,' )'/'r7'n& o/ &,' arra.2n7'n& &o a 5'r.o) o/ ;0 )ay+ r'(=on') /ro7 &,' /.1.n2 o/ &,' 5'&.&.on 4.&, &,' r'3.'4.n2 o//.('. I& /o11o4+, &,'r'/or', &,a& a/&'r &,' '95.ra&.on o/ +a.) 5'r.o), &,' &r.a1 (our& .+ 6oun) &o arra.2n &,' a((u+') or &o )'ny &,' 7o&.on &o )'/'r arra.2n7'n&$ 1n the present case! the petitioners filed their petition for revie& &ith the 3%4 on %ctober #"! 2""/$ When the RTC set the arraignment of the petitioners on August #"! 2""! # year and #" months had already lapsed$ This period &as &ay beyond the ."<day limit provided for by the Rules$ 1n addition! the cases cited by the petitioners < "olar Team &ntertainment' Inc$ #$ Ho%! '##( Roberts' Jr$ #$ CA! '#2( and Dimatlac #$ (illon '#-( < &ere a11 )'(.)') 5r.or &o &,' a7'n)7'n& &o S'(&.on 11 o/ &,' R'3.+') Ru1'+ o/ #r.7.na1 Pro(')ur'&hich too: effect on 3ecember #! 2"""$ At the time these cases &ere decided! there &as no ."<day limit on the suspension of arraignment$ >HERE*ORE! premises considered! the Court resolves to> (#) GRNT the present motion for reconsideration! and REINSTTE the petition for revie& on certiorariA and (2) DEN? the said petition for petitioners9 failure to sho& any reversible error in the challenged RTC order$ SO ORDERED$ Carpio Morales' )Chairperson*' Bersamin' (illarama' Jr$! and "ereno' JJ$! concur$ '#( 3ated 4uly ,! 2"#"$ '2( S?CT1%; *$ Contents of petition$ < The petition shall be filed in eighteen (#6) copies! &ith the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner! and shall x x x (b) indicate the material dates sho&ing &hen notice of the 8udgment or final order or resolution sub8ect thereof &as received! &hen a motion for ne& trial or reconsideration! if any! &as filed and &hen notice of the denial thereof &as received'$( '-( S?CT1%; ,$ 3ismissal or denial of petition$ < The failure of the petitioner to comply &ith any of the foregoing re=uirements regarding the payment of the doc:et and other la&ful fees! deposit for costs! proof of service of the petition! and the contents of and the documents &hich should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof$ '*( S?CT1%; ,$ +ronds for dismissal of appeal$ < The appeal may be dismissed mot proprio or on motion of the respondent on the follo&ing grounds> x x x x (d) 5ailure to comply &ith the re=uirements regarding proof of service and contents of and the documents &hich should accompany the petition'$( ',( Rollo! pp$ 2*<26$ '.( Id$ at -"$ '/( Id$ at -#<--$ '6( Copy of the RTC decision is not attached to the rollo$ '( Rollo! pp$ 2#<22$ '#"( B$R$ ;os$ #."",*<,,! 4uly 2#! 2""*! *-* SCRA .#2$ '##( B$R$ ;o$ #*"6.-! August 22! 2"""! --6 SCRA ,##$ '#2( B$R$ ;o$ ##--"! +arch ,! #.! 2,* SCRA -"/$ '#-( B$R$ ;o$ #2/#"/! %ctober #2! #6! 2/ SCRA ./$