TOPIC Rule 118 – Pre-trial

CASE NO. G.R. No. 148000

CASE NAME People v. Tac-an
MEMBER Kobe Veneracion

DOCTRINE
1. 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

RECIT-READY DIGEST
(Copy pasted from CDAsia’s Synopsis)
Private respondent Austria was charged with falsification of public official document. Out of the
eleven witnesses listed in the Information, only the first three witnesses were notified of the date of the
arraignment and pre-trial. Subsequently, the trial court dismissed the case because none of the three
witnesses appeared before it when the case was called for pre-trial. The public prosecutor filed a motion
for reconsideration of said order, but the same was denied. The People of the Philippines, through the Office
of the Solicitor General, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 65 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure for the nullification of the orders of the trial court. The CA dismissed the
petition on the ground that the errors committed by the trial court were mere errors of judgment which are
not correctible by a writ of certiorari. The appellate court also stated that a reinstatement of the criminal
case will place the private respondent in double jeopardy. Hence, this petition.
In granting the petition, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court acted without jurisdiction when
it dismissed the case merely because none of the witnesses notified by the trial court appeared for the pre-
trial. Under R.A. 8493 (The Speedy Trial Act of 1998), 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. Indeed, even if none of the witnesses
listed in the Information for the State appeared for pre-trial, the same can and should proceed. After all, the
public prosecutor appeared for the State.
The Court also ruled that the CA erred in ruling that the reinstatement of the case will place private
respondent in double jeopardy. When the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and
prove its case, its right to due process is thereby violated. The trial court was not competent as it was ousted
of its jurisdiction when it violated the right of the prosecution to due process. In effect, the first jeopardy
was never terminated, and remand of the criminal case for further hearing and/or trial before the trial court
amounts merely to a continuation of the first jeopardy, and does not expose the accused to a second
jeopardy.

FACTS
• An Information was filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Batangas City against Mario N.
Austria for falsification of public official document.
• The following were listed in the Information as witnesses for the People of the Philippines, and
their respective addresses/places of station/assignment were also indicated therein:
1. SPO3 Gaudencio C. Aguilera, Malvar Police Station, Malvar, Batangas;
2. SPO2 Simplicio M. Bejasa,

1
 3. PG2 Sofronio Vicencio, c/o Provincial Jail, Brgy. Cuta Bilibid, Batangas City;
4. SPO4 Benjamin Geron, Batangas Provincial Police Office, Camp Malvar, Kumintang Ilaya, Batangas City;
5. PCI Franklin Moises, Mabanag;
6. PCI Jonathan Viernes Ablang,
7. PCI Edwin G. Nemenzo, Firearms and Explosives Unit, Camp Crane (sic), Quezon City
8. P/Inspector Anacleta Cultura, PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office IV, Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba,
Laguna
9. Miguel C. Malvar III, General Services Office, Batangas Capitol, Batangas City;
10. Augusto M. Claveria, Office of the Provincial Administrator, Batangas Capitol, Batangas City
11. Personnel Officer, Office of the Provincial Governor, Batangas Capitol, Batangas City — RE: Appointment
of Mario N. Austria as OIC, Provincial Warden from January 1999 to June 2, 1999
• The trial court set the arraignment of the accused and the initial pre-trial. Apparently, out of the 11
witnesses, only the first three witnesses were notified of said arraignment and pre-trial. When the
case was called for pre-trial, the trial court discovered that none of the three witnesses who were
allegedly earlier notified by the court was in attendance.
• On motion of the accused, the trial court issued an order dismissing the case for failure of said
witnesses to appear before it. The public prosecutor filed an MR, contending that the trial court
acted arbitrarily when it dismissed the case simply because three of its witnesses failed to appear
at the initial pre-trial. He argued further that the dismissal of the case was not authorized under RA
8943.
• The trial court posits that under 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.
• The People filed a petition for certiorari with the CA for the nullification of the orders of the trial
court. The CA rendered a decision dismissing the petition.

Petitioner’s Contention
• RA 8493 does not contain any provision which mandates a trial court to dismiss a criminal case for
failure of the witnesses of the prosecution to appear at the pre-trial.

ISSUE/S and HELD

1. W/N the CA was correct for dismissing the case simply because the 3 witnesses failed to appear at
the initial pre-trial – NO

RATIO
1. On the issue of dismissal of the case:
• 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.
• 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 State, like the accused is also entitled to due process in criminal cases. 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 void for lack of jurisdiction.
• 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.

2
 • 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 a 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.

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of
Appeals and the Orders of respondent Regional Trial Court, (Annexes "A", "C", and "E" of the petition,)
are SET ASIDE. Respondent Regional Trial Court is ordered to REINSTATE People vs. Mario Austria,
Criminal Case No. 10766 in the docket of the court.