G.R. No. 173637; April 21, 2009
DANTE T. TAN, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

On December 19, 2000, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed three Informations against petitioner Dante T. Tan before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, docketed as Criminal Cases No. 119830, No. 119831, and No. 119832. Criminal Case No. 119830 alleged that petitioner employed manipulative devices in purchasing Best World Resources Corporation (BW) shares, while Criminal Cases No. 119831 and No. 119832 involved his alleged failure to file a sworn statement of beneficial ownership of BW shares with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). These cases were consolidated with two related cases (Criminal Cases No. 119828 and No. 119829) against other individuals. After arraignment on January 16, 2001, where petitioner pleaded not guilty, pre-trial concluded on February 6, 2001, with trial set for February 27, 2001. The prosecution claimed that during the initial hearing, the parties agreed to try Criminal Cases No. 119831 and No. 119832 ahead of Criminal Case No. 119830, with petitioner not objecting. The prosecution presented evidence for Criminal Cases No. 119831 and No. 119832, completing its presentation on September 18, 2001, and filing its formal offer of evidence on November 25, 2003. On December 2, 2003, petitioner moved to dismiss Criminal Case No. 119830 for failure to prosecute, alleging a violation of his right to speedy trial due to unreasonable delay without justification, persistent assertions of his right, and substantial prejudice. The prosecution opposed, reiterating the alleged agreement to defer trial. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss on December 22, 2003, finding the delays vexatious and oppressive. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision on February 22, 2006, reinstating Criminal Case No. 119830, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and motion to inhibit on July 17, 2006. Petitioner then filed this petition, raising issues including the validity of the certificate of non-forum shopping, double jeopardy, violation of his right to speedy trial, and grave abuse of discretion by the trial court.

ISSUE

Whether Criminal Case No. 119830 was correctly dismissed by the trial court on the ground of violation of petitioner’s right to speedy trial.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision reinstating Criminal Case No. 119830. The Court held that petitioner’s right to speedy trial was not violated. Applying the balancing test from Barker v. Wingo, the Court considered: (1) the length of delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right, and (4) prejudice to the defendant. The delay of approximately two years and ten months from the first trial date was not per se prejudicial. The reason for the delay was the prosecution’s strategy to try the related cases first, which was not vexatious or capricious. Petitioner did not timely assert his right; his motion to dismiss came only after the prosecution completed its evidence in the other cases, suggesting acquiescence to the deferment. No substantial prejudice was shown, as petitioner failed to demonstrate how the delay impaired his defense. The Court also ruled that the Acting DOJ Secretary had authority to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping, as criminal cases are prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines, represented by the DOJ. The petition for certiorari did not violate double jeopardy, as the dismissal by the trial court was not based on the merits or a valid termination of the case. The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case without considering the prosecution’s valid reasons for the delay and petitioner’s implied agreement to the trial schedule.