Digest of Tan Vs People
Digest of Tan Vs People
April 21, 2009 | G.R. No. 173637 | Chico-Nazario 119831 and No. 119832 (1st and 2nd case). On Sept. 18, 2001, the
prosecution completed the presentation of its evidence and was
Doctrine: An accused's right to speedy trial is deemed violated only when ordered by the RTC to file its formal offer of evidence within thirty
the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays. days.
o The prosecution was able to file said formal offer for on Nov.
Brief Summary: Three informations were filed against Tan. Two of the 25, 2003.
cases were tried ahead one of the cases. Tan claims his right to speedy trial On December 2, 2003, Tan moved to dismiss Criminal Case No.
was violated because for a period of almost two years and eight months, 119830 (3rd case) due to the People's alleged failure to prosecute.
the prosecution did not present a single evidence for the third case. The He asserts that for a period of almost two years and eight months,
Court held that there was no violation of his right to speedy trial as he gave the prosecution did not present a single evidence for said case.
his implied consent to the separate trial of the 3rd case. The prosecution opposed. Argument: They had an earlier agreement
to defer the trial of the 3rd case until after that of the 1st and 2nd case,
Facts: as the presentation of evidence and prosecution in each of the five
Three informations were filed against Dante Tan before RTC Pasig. cases involved were to be done separately. The presentation of
o Criminal Cases No. 119831 and No. 119832 involve the alleged evidence in the 1st and 2nd case, however, were done simultaneously,
failure of petitioner to file with the Securities and Exchange because they involved similar offenses.
Commission (SEC) a sworn statement of his beneficial The RTC ordered the dismissal of the 3rd case
ownership of BW shares. (1st and 2nd case) The RTC's order of dismissal was elevated to the CA via a petition for
o Criminal Case No. 119830 pertains to allegations that certiorari. Granted.
petitioner employed manipulative devises in the purchase of
Best World Resources Corporation (BW) shares. (3rd case) Issue: WoN Tan’s Right to Speedy Trial was violated - No
In two other related cases, two Informations were filed against a
certain Jimmy Juan and Eduardo G. Lim for violation of the Revised Ruling:
Securities Act involving BW shares of stock. These were docketed as In Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, the court held that an accused's right to speedy
Criminal Cases No. 119828 and No. 119829. (4th and 5th case) -- [not trial is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious,
relevant, but sir might ask] capricious, and oppressive delays. In determining whether petitioner was
On the same day, the DOJ, through Assistant Chief State deprived of this right, the factors to consider and balance are the following:
Prosecutor Nilo C. Mariano, filed a Motion for Consolidation for all 5 (a) duration of the delay; (b) reason therefor; (c) assertion of the right or
cases, which was granted. failure to assert it; and (d) prejudice caused by such delay.
Tan was arraigned on Jan. 16, 2001. He pleaded not guilty.
On Feb. 6, 2001, the pre-trial was concluded, and a pre-trial order set, In determining the right of an accused to speedy trial, courts are required to
among other things, the first date of trial on Feb. 27, 2001. do more than a mathematical computation of the number of
During the initial hearing, the parties agreed that Criminal Cases postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case. A mere
No. 119831 and No. 119832 (1st and 2nd case) would be tried ahead mathematical reckoning of the time involved is clearly insufficient, and
of Criminal Case No. 119830 (3rd case), and that Tan did not particular regard must be given to the facts and circumstances peculiar to
interpose any objection. each case.
Although periods for trial have been stipulated, these periods are not proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays. The
absolute. The concept of speedy trial is a relative term and must necessarily inquiry as to whether or not an accused has been denied such right is not
be a flexible concept. susceptible by precise qualification. The concept of a speedy disposition is
a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept.
Tan's objection to the prosecution's stand that he gave an implied consent
to the separate trial of Criminal Case No. 119830 is belied by the records of While justice is administered with dispatch, the essential ingredient is
the case. No objection was interposed by his defense counsel when this orderly, expeditious and not mere speed. It cannot be definitely said how
matter was discussed during the initial hearing. Tan's conformity thereto long is too long in a system where justice is supposed to be swift, but
can be deduced from his non-objection at the preliminary hearing when the deliberate. It is consistent with delays and depends upon circumstances. It
prosecution manifested that the evidence to be presented would be only secures rights to the accused, but it does not preclude the rights of public
for Criminal Cases No. 119831-119832. His failure to object to the justice. Also, it must be borne in mind that the rights given to the accused
prosecution's manifestation that the cases be tried separately is fatal to his by the Constitution and the Rules of Court are shields, not weapons; hence,
case. The acts, mistakes and negligence of counsel bind his client, except courts are to give meaning to that intent.
only when such mistakes would result in serious injustice.
A balancing test of applying societal interests and the rights of the accused
Expansive Discussion on The Right to Speedy Trial necessarily compels the court to approach speedy trial cases on an ad hoc
basis.
An accused's right to "have a speedy, impartial, and public trial" is
guaranteed in criminal cases by Section 14(2) of Article III of the In Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that there was no violation of
Constitution. This right to a speedy trial may be defined as one free from the right to speedy trial and speedy disposition. The Court took into
vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays, its "salutary objective" being account the reasons for the delay, i.e., the frequent amendments of
to assure that an innocent person may be free from the anxiety and expense procedural laws by presidential decrees, the structural reorganizations in
of a court litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt determined within existing prosecutorial agencies and the creation of new ones by executive
the shortest possible time compatible with the presentation and fiat, resulting in changes of personnel, preliminary jurisdiction, and the
consideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he may interpose. functions and powers of prosecuting agencies. The Court also considered
Intimating historical perspective on the evolution of the right to speedy the failure of the accused to assert such right, and the lack of prejudice
trial, we reiterate the old legal maxim, "justice delayed is justice denied." caused by the delay to the accused.
Following the policies incorporated under the 1987 Constitution, Republic In Defensor-Santiago v. Sandiganbayan, the complexity of the issues and
Act No. 8493, otherwise known as "The Speedy Trial Act of 1998," was the failure of the accused to invoke her right to speedy disposition at the
enacted, with Section 6 of said act limiting the trial period to 180 days from appropriate time spelled defeat for her claim to the constitutional
the first day of trial. guarantee.
The right of the accused to a speedy trial and to a speedy disposition of the
case against him was designed to prevent the oppression of the citizen by In Cadalin v. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration's
holding criminal prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time, and Administrator, the Court, considering also the complexity of the cases and
to prevent delays in the administration of justice by mandating the courts the conduct of the parties' lawyers, held that the right to speedy disposition
to proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal cases. Such right was not violated therein.
to a speedy trial and a speedy disposition of a case is violated only when the
Other issue: WoN the reversal of the RTC's Order dismissing the 3rd case
is a violation of his constitutional right against double jeopardy? – No
As Tan's right to speedy trial was not transgressed, this exception to the
fourth element of double jeopardy - that the defendant was acquitted or
convicted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the
express consent of the accused - was not met. Where the dismissal of the
case was allegedly capricious, certiorari lies from such order of dismissal
and does not involve double jeopardy, as the petition challenges not the
correctness but the validity of the order of dismissal; such grave abuse of
discretion amounts to lack of jurisdiction, which prevents double jeopardy
from attaching.
The instant case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 153,
Pasig City for further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 119830 with
reasonable dispatch.