GR 148000; (February, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148000 ; February 27, 2003
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE PATERNO V. TAC-AN and MARIO N. AUSTRIA, respondents.
FACTS
An Information for falsification of a public document was filed against Mario N. Austria. The Information listed eleven prosecution witnesses. During the initial arraignment and pre-trial, the trial court noted the absence of three specific witnesses—SPO3 Aguilera, SPO2 Bejasa, and PG2 Vicencio—who had been notified. Over the prosecution’s objection, the trial court granted the accused’s motion and dismissed the case for the prosecution’s failure to present these witnesses. The court reasoned that the absence of complaining witnesses defeated the purpose of mandatory pre-trial under R.A. No. 8493 (The Speedy Trial Act of 1998).
The prosecution moved for reconsideration, arguing the dismissal was arbitrary as only three of its eleven witnesses had been subpoenaed and their absence did not warrant dismissal. The trial court denied the motion, stating it was the prosecutor’s duty to ensure witness attendance. The prosecution’s petition for certiorari was subsequently dismissed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal case for the prosecution’s failure to present witnesses at the pre-trial, thereby violating the prosecution’s right to due process.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the assailed orders, and directed the reinstatement of the criminal case. The trial court’s dismissal constituted a denial of the prosecution’s fundamental right to due process. The Court emphasized that pre-trial under R.A. No. 8493 is designed to expedite trial, not to dismiss cases summarily. The absence of some witnesses at the pre-trial stage does not justify dismissal, as the prosecution is not yet required to present its evidence. The proper course was for the court to proceed with the pre-trial on matters not requiring the absent witnesses’ participation or to reset the hearing.
The dismissal order was void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to a lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the principle of double jeopardy does not apply, as the first jeopardy never validly attached. A void judgment cannot terminate a case validly. Therefore, the reinstatement and continuation of the case merely constitutes a continuation of the original prosecution, not a second jeopardy.