G.R. No. L-39962 April 7, 1976
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO BERIALES, BENEDICTO CUSTODIO and PABLITO CUSTODIO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The appellants were charged with murder before the Court of First Instance of Leyte. Upon their counsel’s motion, the trial court granted a reinvestigation by the City Fiscal and initially postponed the arraignment and trial pending the result. The City Fiscal scheduled the reinvestigation for December 12, 1974. However, the trial court, invoking the constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases, motu proprio advanced the hearing dates to December 10-11, 1974, and then to December 13, 1974, before the reinvestigation could be concluded and reported.
On December 13, despite the appellants’ repeated manifestations that they awaited the Fiscal’s reinvestigation report, the trial court insisted on proceeding. The City Fiscal was absent, but a private prosecutor, previously authorized, was present. The court arraigned the appellants, and upon their refusal to plead, entered a plea of not guilty for each. The private prosecutor then presented evidence. The defense counsel consistently refused to participate, including waiving cross-examination, insisting on waiting for the Fiscal’s report. The trial court considered these refusals as waivers, allowed the prosecution to rest, and, after the defense presented no evidence, submitted the case for decision. A conviction for murder and a sentence of reclusion perpetua were promulgated on December 17, 1974.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court denied the appellants their right to due process by proceeding with the trial and conviction despite the pending reinvestigation and the absence of the public prosecutor.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a new arraignment and trial. The legal logic is anchored on fundamental due process and the proper role of the public prosecutor. First, by granting the motion for reinvestigation, the trial court was duty-bound to await its outcome before proceeding. The reinvestigation could have potentially led to a modification or dismissal of the charges; thus, proceeding without its conclusion prejudiced the appellants’ substantial rights. Second, and decisively, the trial was conducted without the presence or control of the City Fiscal or any authorized public prosecutor. While a private prosecutor may be allowed to intervene, the prosecution of criminal offenses remains under the exclusive direction and control of the public prosecutor, who represents the sovereign People of the Philippines. The private prosecutor’s derivative authority lapses in the public prosecutor’s absence, as the latter’s supervision is indispensable. Consequently, the evidence presented by the private prosecutor in the Fiscal’s absence could not be considered valid evidence for the state. The trial court thus rendered a judgment of conviction based on no competent evidence for the prosecution, a clear denial of due process. The Court emphasized that the public prosecutor’s duty is to ensure that justice is done, which includes safeguarding the innocent, a duty that cannot be fulfilled in absentia.