People v. Castillo

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252403. December 7, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. CYNTHIA S. CASTILLO AND MERLYN P. ASUNCION, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 7, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 252403 — People of the Philippines v. Cynthia S. Castillo and Merlyn P. Asuncion

We reverse.

The provisional dismissal of a criminal case 1 is governed by Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, viz.:

Section 8. Provisional dismissal. — A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the express consent of the accused and with notice to the offended party.

The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their provisional dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. (Emphasis supplied)

People v. Lacson2 decreed that a valid provisional dismissal requires the following essential requisites:

1. The prosecution with the express conformity of the accused or the accused moves for a provisional (sin perjuicio) dismissal of the case; or both the prosecution and the accused move for a provisional dismissal of the case;

2. The offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case;

3. The court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing the case provisionally; and

4. The public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of provisional dismissal of the case. (Emphases supplied)

The concurrence of these essential requisites is a condition sine qua non to the application of the time-bar rule under the second paragraph of Section 8, Rule 117. 3

Here, the presence of the first and third requisites is undisputed. Respondents expressly conformed with the provisional dismissal of the criminal cases against them. Respondents, through their counsel Atty. Carmi Rose Genova-de Guzman orally moved for the provisional dismissal of these cases during the August 3, 2015 hearing. Consequently, then Judge Icasiano, Jr., in open court and on the same day, granted the motion and provisionally dismissed the cases via Order dated August 3, 2015.

As for the second and fourth requisites, however, the same were not established.

First, records do not show that NBI Agents Renato Garbo III and Joselito Bangit who had custody of the two-month old infant, and who were also the complainants, were notified of the motion for provisional dismissal of Criminal Case No. TMCR-335-10 and Criminal Case No. TMCR-336-10. Too, there was no evidence on record that one Fiscal Frondozo who was allegedly present during the said hearing actually informed Agents Garbo and Bangit about respondents' motion.

In other words, complainants NBI Agents Garbo and Bangit were not given the opportunity to seasonably and effectively comment on or object to the motion for provisional dismissal based on any of the following grounds: (a) the prosecution and respondents may have possibly colluded and consequently deprived the State of its right to due process; (b) there were attempts to make the witnesses unavailable; or (c) the consequent release of respondents from detention 4 might expose the child victim to another abuse and trafficking.

Second, the public prosecutor likewise had not been duly served a copy of the August 3, 2015 Order. Respondents do not even refute this fact.

The purpose of the rules on service is to ensure that the party being served with the order or judgment is duly informed of the same in order to avail appropriate remedies before such order or judgment becomes final. 5 The basic requirement of due process mandates the need to serve the public prosecutor a copy of the August 3, 2015 Order so that he or she can duly comply with the one (1) or two (2)-year timeline under Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. 6

In Co v. New Prosperity Plastic Products, 7 the Court specifically ordained that the order of dismissal shall become permanent one (1) year or two (2) years after service of the order of dismissal on the public prosecutor who has control of the prosecution. The public prosecutor cannot be expected to comply with the timeline unless he or she is served with a copy of the order of dismissal.

Since the second and fourth requisites for the application of time bar rule are conspicuously absent here, the time bar cannot be deemed to have even come into motion. 8

More important, there is no truth to the statement of Judge Icasiano, Jr. that the prosecution "failed to present any witnesses to substantiate its case." For it is a matter of record that the prosecution had already presented its material witnesses through NBI Agents Garbo and Bangit on May 30, 2011, and February 10, 2014 respectively. Hence, there was no occasion at all to speak of violation of the right of the accused to speedy disposition of the cases against them. Surely, where the prosecution may have repeatedly failed to present its additional witnesses to testify against the accused, the remedy for the defense is not to move for the dismissal of the case but to ask that the prosecution be deemed to have waived its presentation of additional witnesses and to have concluded the presentation of its evidence in chief. As pronounced in Yuchengco v. Sandiganbayan, 9 each party is bound to complete the presentation of evidence within the assigned trial dates. After the lapse of the said dates, the party is deemed to have completed the presentation of evidence.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated March 28, 2019, and Resolution dated February 21, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 154889 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Orders dated September 9, 2017, and January 10, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court-Branch 23, Trece Martires City are REINSTATED. The Regional Trial Court-Branch 23, Trece Martires City is DIRECTED to proceed with the trial of Criminal Case No. TMCR-335-10 and Criminal Case No. TMCR-336-10 with utmost dispatch.

SO ORDERED." Lopez, J., J., no part; Inting, J., designated as additional Member per Raffle dated November 24, 2021.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Condrada v. People, 446 Phil. 635, 640 (2003) as cited in Bonsubre v. Yerro, 753 Phil. 653, 665 (2015).

2. 448 Phil. 317, 370-371 (2003).

3.Id.

4.Id. at 379.

5.Soriano v. Soriano, 558 Phil. 627, 641 (2007).

6.Co v. New Prosperity Plastic Products, 737 Phil. 334, 344 (2014).

7.Id.

8.Supra note 2.

9. 515 Phil. 1 (2006).