G.R. No. 241729 , July 08, 2020
MICHAEL DAVID T. CASTAÑEDA, JUSTIN FRANCIS D. REYES, FRANCISCO JOSE TUNGPALAN VILLEGAS, DANIEL PAUL MARTIN C. BAUTISTA AND VIC ANGELO G. DY, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners were charged with violation of the Anti-Hazing Law ( R.A. No. 8049 ) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, stemming from the death of Guillo Cesar Servando during fraternity initiation rites. After arraignment, the prosecution was given three trial dates within a week to present its evidence. Subpoenas were issued to several witnesses. Some subpoenas were returned unserved (e.g., “moved out,” discharged from the Witness Protection Program), while others were served. On the scheduled hearing dates, no prosecution witnesses appeared. The RTC issued Notices to Explain to the witnesses, but no returns were received. The prosecution moved for the issuance of warrants of arrest against the absent witnesses, which the RTC denied. Petitioners then moved to dismiss the case, invoking their right to speedy trial. The RTC granted the motion and dismissed the case in an Order dated December 22, 2015. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition, nullified the RTC’s dismissal orders, and reinstated the criminal case. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

The primary issue, as resolved by the Supreme Court, is whether the dismissal of the criminal case by the RTC violated the State’s right to due process and constituted grave abuse of discretion, thereby precluding the attachment of double jeopardy.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the RTC’s dismissal of the case was void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. The dismissal after only three trial settings within a week, and before the prosecution could be given a reasonable opportunity to present its case, was a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. The delay was not unreasonable, and the prosecution’s postponements were not without good cause (e.g., unserved subpoenas, absent witnesses who had not yet explained their absence). Consequently, since the dismissal order was void, the reinstatement of the case did not place petitioners in double jeopardy. The State, like any litigant, is entitled to its day in court and a reasonable opportunity to present its case. The RTC was directed to proceed with the case with judicious dispatch.