G.R. No. L-7691; July 31, 1954
EDILBERTO ESGUERRA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH VII, and ASSISTANT FISCAL GREGORIO T. LANTIN, respondents.

FACTS

On January 31, 1952, an information for bigamy was filed against Edilberto Esguerra for marrying Arsenia Yabut while his first marriage to Sabina Barcelona was still subsisting. After pleading not guilty on February 13, 1953, the trial faced multiple postponements. On April 24, 1953, the trial was postponed due to the non-appearance of prosecution witness Arsenia Yabut. On May 22, 1953, some evidence was taken, but the prosecution requested a continuance due to Yabut’s absence again, as the court was informed she and another vital witness were being hidden by parties interested in the defendant’s acquittal. On May 29, 1953, a continuance was granted at the defendant’s request due to alleged illness. On July 20, 1953, the hearing was postponed because the two wives had not been served subpoenas as they were hiding or being hidden; the court ordered their arrest. Arsenia Yabut was seized and explained she had changed her address, after which she was released. The case was rescheduled for March 31, 1954, but the prosecution was again unable to present Yabut because she had deliberately given a fictitious address when last before the judge. The trial judge ordered a fifth postponement. The defendant, having objected to every postponement except the third, initiated proceedings in April 1954 seeking dismissal of the information, invoking his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

ISSUE

Whether the multiple postponements of the trial violated the petitioner’s constitutional right to a speedy trial, warranting the dismissal of the criminal information against him.

RULING

No. The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional right to a speedy trial is relative and depends on circumstances, securing rights to a defendant but not precluding the rights of public justice. The postponements were due to the absence of material prosecution witnesses, specifically Arsenia Yabut, who were hiding or being hidden, likely with the knowledge or connivance of the accused or his friends. The law will not permit an accused to benefit from a delay they helped create. The right to a speedy trial was never intended as a technical means to escape trial. Courts uniformly hold that an accused cannot complain of delay if they keep state witnesses away. Furthermore, some jurisdictions hold that statutes implementing this right do not apply when delays are caused by continuances made by the court on its own motion, presuming the state is not responsible. Given that the delays were attributable to the witnesses’ evasion, likely facilitated by the accused, and the court’s continuances were to allow the state to secure its witnesses, there was no vexatious or oppressive delay violating the Constitution. The Court also noted the accused is a member of the Bar and the alleged second wife is a bar applicant, making the scenario particularly scandalous. The prosecution was advised to utilize available legal mechanisms to secure witness appearance.