Can't share this digest on Facebook? Here's why.
G.R. No. 148000 – 446 Phil. 496 – 398 SCRA 373 – Remedial Law – Criminal Procedure – Presence of private offended party during pre-trial is not required
In February 2000, a criminal case for Falsification of Official Public Documents was filed against Mario Austria. The prosecutor listed 11 witnesses against Austria. When the case was called for arraignment and pre-trial, no witnesses for the prosecution appeared. Upon inquiry by Judge Paterno Tac-an, only three witnesses were subpoenaed. Nevertheless, when Austria moved for the dismissal of the case, Judge Tac-an granted the motion. The prosecutor submitted a motion for reconsideration but the judge denied the same. The judge stated that under the Speedy Trial Act (R.A. No. 8493), pre-trial is mandatory and the presence of the complaining witnesses is likewise required during the trial for the parties to participate in the plea bargaining and stipulation of facts during said proceedings. If the complaining witnesses are absent, the principal purpose of the pre-trial cannot be achieved. Judge Tac-an further stated in his Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration that to grant the same would be violative of the Austria’s right against double jeopardy.
ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of the criminal case on the ground that the complaining witness is absent is proper.
HELD: No. 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. It is enough that the accused is represented by his counsel.
Anent Judge Tac-an’s argument that granting the prosecutor’s motion will lead in double jeopardy, the same is not correct. The requisites of double jeopardy are: (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. Since the instant case (the first jeopardy) was not validly terminated, then the second requisite is not present. Hence, granting the motion will not lead in double jeopardy to the prejudice of the accused.
