Sunday, March 8, 2015

Under R.A. 8493, the absence during pre-trial of any witness for the prosecution listed in the Information, whether or not said witness is the offended party or the complaining witness, is not a valid ground for the dismissal of a criminal case. Although under the law, pre-trial is mandatory in criminal cases, the presence of the private complainant or the complaining witness is however not required. Even the presence of the accused is not required unless directed by the trial court.[9] It is enough that the accused is represented by his counsel.

See - People vs Tac-an : 148000 : February 27, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division





"x x x.

Under R.A. 8493, the absence during pre-trial of any witness for the prosecution listed in the Information, whether or not said witness is the offended party or the complaining witness, is not a valid ground for the dismissal of a criminal case.  Although under the law, pre-trial is mandatory in criminal cases, the presence of the private complainant or the complaining witness is however not required.  Even the presence of the accused is not required unless directed by the trial court.[9]  It is enough that the accused is represented by his counsel.
Indeed, even if none of the witnesses listed in the information for the State appeared for the pre-trial, the same can and should proceed.  After all, the public prosecutor appeared for the State.  The public prosecutor is vested with authority to consider those matters catalogued in Section 2 of R.A. 8493.
The trial court thus acted without jurisdiction when it dismissed the case merely because none of the witnesses notified by the trial court appeared for the pre-trial.  The State, like the accused is also entitled to due process in criminal cases.[10]  The order of the trial court dismissing the criminal case deprived the State of its right to prosecute and prove its case.  Said order is, therefore, void for lack of jurisdiction, and is of no effect.[11]   By its ruling, this Court is not abetting or even glossing over the failure of the three witnesses of the prosecution to appear at the initial pre-trial of the case. Said witnesses may be cited by the trial court in contempt of court if their absence was unjustified.  Undue delay in the prosecution of the case should not also be condoned.  But the right of the State to prosecute the case and prove the criminal liability of the private respondent for the crime charged should not be derailed and stymied by precipitate and capricious dismissal of the case at the initial pre-trial stage. To do justice to private respondent and injustice to the State is no justice at all.  Justice must be done to all the parties alike.  Not too long ago this Court ruled in Dimatulac vs. Villon:[12]

The judge, on the other hand, “should always be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of his obligation to promptly and properly administer justice.”  He must view himself as a priest, for the administration of justice is akin to a religious crusade.  Thus, exerting the same devotion as a priest “in the performance of the most sacred ceremonies of religious liturgy,” the judge must render service with impartiality commensurate with the public trust and confidence reposed in him.  Although the determination of a criminal case before a judge lies within his exclusive jurisdiction and competence, his discretion is not unfettered, but rather must be exercised within reasonable confines.  The judge's action must not impair the substantial rights of the accused, nor the right of the State and offended party to due process of law.

Indeed, for justice to prevail, the scales must balance; justice is not to be dispensed for the accused alone.  The interests of society and the offended parties which have been wronged must be equally considered.  Verily, a verdict of conviction is not necessarily a denial of justice; and an acquittal is not necessarily a triumph of justice; for, to the society offended and the party wronged, it could also mean injustice.  Justice then must be rendered even-handedly to both the accused, on one hand, and the State and offended party, on the other.

The Court of Appeals also erred in ruling that  the reinstatement of the case does not place the private respondent in double jeopardy.  This Court ruled in Saldana vs. Court of Appeals, et al.[13] that:

When the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case, its right to due process is thereby violated (Uy vs. Genato, L-37399, 57 SCRA 123 [May 29, 1974]; Serino vs. Zoa, L-33116, 40 SCRA 433 [Aug. 31, 1971]; People vs. Gomez, L-22345, 20 SCRA 293 [May 29, 1967]; People vs. Balisacan, L-26376, 17 SCRA 1119 [Aug. 31, 1966]).

The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their jurisdiction.  Thus, the violation of the State’s right to due process raises a serious jurisdiction issue (Gumabon vs. Director of the Bureau of Prisons, L-300026, 37 SCRA 420 [Jan. 30, 1971]) which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will.  Where the  denial of the fundamental right of due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction (Aducayen vs. Flores, L-30370, [May 25, 1973] 51 SCRA 78; Shell Co. vs. Enage, L-30111-12, 49 SCRA 416 [Feb. 27, 1973]).  Any judgment or decision rendered notwithstanding such violation may be regarded as a ‘lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever it exhibits its head’ (Aducayen vs. Flores, supra).

Respondent Judge’s dismissal order dated July 7, 1967 being null and void for lack of jurisdiction, the same does not constitute a proper basis for a claim of double jeopardy (Serino vs. Zosa,  supra.).
xxx     xxx     xxx
Thus, apparently, to raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.

Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused (People vs. Ylagan, 58 Phil. 851).  The lower court was not competent as it was ousted of its jurisdiction when it violated the right of the prosecution to due processs.

In effect, the first jeopardy was never terminated, and the remand of the criminal case for further hearing and/or trial before the lower courts amounts merely to a continuation of the first jeopardy, and does not expose the accused to a second jeopardy. ..
x xx."