Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 159098 October 27, 2006
SPS. HENRY a! ROS"R#O UY, petitioners,
vs.
HON. $U%GE "RSEN#O P. "%R#"NO, & '&( ca)ac&t* a( Pa&r&+ $,!+e o- RTC,
.r. 6/, Tar0ac C&t*, C#TY PROSECUTOR "1#P#O C. YUMU1 a!
P#2"3"M"S"R"P CORP., respondents.
D ! I S I O N
C"11E$O, SR., J.4
!hallen"ed in this instant Petition for Revie# on Certiorari is the Decision
$
of the
!ourt of %ppeals &!%' in !%().R. SP No. *+$,- #hich affir.ed the Orders of the
Re"ional Trial !ourt &RT!' of Tarlac !it/
+
den/in" the .otion to 0uash the
Infor.ation in !ri.inal !ase Nos. *1$+(23.
4ased on a confidential infor.ation that petitioner 5enr/ 6/ had been en"a"ed in
.anufacturin", deliverin", and sellin" 7fa8e7 Marca Pi9a so/ sauce,
-
Orlando S.
4undoc, Intelli"ence Officer II of the cono.ic Intelli"ence and Investi"ation 4ureau
&II4', applied for a search #arrant
3
for unfair co.petition #hich #as "ranted on
Februar/ $3, $223. :hen the search #arrant #as i.ple.ented on even date, %tt/.
Francisco R. stavillo, a"ent of the National 4ureau of Investi"ation &N4I' in Tarlac,
sei;ed fift/(five &11' bottles of label Marca Pi9a so/ sauce.
1
!onse0uentl/, a cri.inal co.plaint #as filed in the Municipal Trial !ourt &MT!' of
Tarlac !it/ on March +-, $223, char"in" petitioner 5enr/ 6/ #ith violation of %rticle
$<2 &6nfair !o.petition' of the Revised Penal !ode.
*
On Nove.ber <, $223, private respondent Pi9a8a.asarap !orporation .oved to
a.end the cri.inal char"e b/ includin" 5enr/=s spouse, petitioner Rosario 6/.
>
The
court "ranted the .otion in its Order dated Nove.ber $1, $223 and ad.itted the
a.ended cri.inal co.plaint #hich reads?
The undersi"ned, @6IS . )ONA%@S, !o.ptroller of PIB%C%M%S%R%P
!ORPOR%TION of 1<- Sta. Veronica St., Novaliches, Due;on !it/, and b/
authorit/ of the said corporation, under oath accuses 5NRE 6E, ROS%RIO
)6TIRRA 6E and a certain FO5N DO of Violation of %rticle $<2 of the
Revised Penal !ode, co..itted as follo#s?
That on or about Februar/ $3, $223, and for so.eti.es &sic' prior thereto,
in Municipalit/ of Tarlac, Tarlac, Philippines, the said Rosario ). 6/
accused, bein" then the o#ner of a business establish.ent #ith principal
address at Phase I, Northern 5ills Subdivision, San Vicente, Tarlac, Tarlac,
and her co(accused, husband, 5NRE 6E, and a certain Fohn Doe, did
then and there, #illfull/, unla#full/ and feloniousl/ conspire and confederate
to"ether and help one another en"a"ed in unfair co.petition #ith the
intention of deceivin" and defraudin" the public in "eneral and the
consu.in" public in "eneral and PIB%C%M%S%R%P !orporation, the
.anufacturer and bottler of so/ sauce under the na.e 7M%R!% PIB%,7 a
Gtrade.ar8H dul/ re"istered #ith the Philippine Patent Office and sell or offer
for sale so/ sauce .anufactured b/ the. #ith the brand na.e 7Marca Pi9a7
#hich is a bastard version of the trade.ar8, and usin" the bottles of
Pi9a8a.asarap !orporation and substituted the contents thereof #ith those
.anufactured b/ the accused and passin" to the public that said products
to be the products of Pi9a8a.asarap !orporation #hich is not true, thereb/
inducin" the public to believe that the above(.entioned so/ sauce sold or
offered for sale b/ said accused are "enuine 7M%R!% PIB%7 so/ sauce
.anufactured b/ PIB%C%M%S%R%P !ORPOR%TION, and of inferior
0ualit/ to the da.a"e and preIudice of the Pi9a8a.asarap !orporation.
!ontrar/ to la#.
Tarlac, Tarlac, Nove.ber <, $223.
<
%fter preli.inar/ eJa.ination of the prosecution #itnesses, the court found probable
cause to indict petitioners.
2
On Fanuar/ -,, $221, the court issued a #arrant of arrest
a"ainst petitioners.
$,
The/ #ere released after postin" a cash bond on Februar/ $,
$221.
$$
On Ful/ $,, $221, petitioners #ere arrai"ned, assisted b/ counsel, and
pleaded not "uilt/ to the char"e.
$+
Petitioners, throu"h counsel, #aived the pre(trial
conference on October +1, $221. The initial trial #as set on Nove.ber +>, $221.
$-
5o#ever, it #as onl/ on Februar/ +*, $22* that the first #itness of the prosecution,
%tt/. stavillo of the N4I, testified. In the .eanti.e, in October $22*, this !ourt
issued %d.inistrative Order &%.O.' No. $,3(2* providin", inter alia, that the RT! shall
have eJclusive Iurisdiction over violations of %rticles $<< and $<2 of the Revised
Penal !ode and Republic %ct &R.%.' No. $**, as a.ended, thus?
VIO@%TIONS OF INT@@!T6%@ PROPRTE RI)5TS S6!5 %S, 46T
NOT @IMITD TO, VIO@%TIONS OF %RT. $<< OF T5 RVISD PN%@
1
!OD &S64STIT6TIN) %ND %@TRIN) TR%DM%RCS, TR%D N%MS,
OR SRVI! M%RCS', %RT. $<2 OF T5 RVISD PN%@ !OD
&6NF%IR !OMPTITION, FR%6D6@NT R)ISTR%TION OF
TR%DM%RCS, TR%D N%MS, OR SRVI! M%RCS, FR%6D6@NT
DSI)N%TION OF ORI)IN, %ND F%@S DS!RIPTION', P.D. NO. 32
&PROT!TION OF INT@@!T6%@ PROPRTE RI)5TS', P.D. NO. <>
&%N %!T !R%TIN) T5 VIDO)R%M R)6@%TORE 4O%RD', R.%. NO.
$*1, %S %MNDD &T5 P%TNT @%:', %ND R.%. NO. $**, %S
%MNDD &T5 TR%DM%RC @%:' S5%@@ 4 TRID K!@6SIV@E
4E T5 R)ION%@ TRI%@ !O6RTS IN %!!ORD%N! :IT5 T5
ST%4@IS5D R%FF@ S!5M K!PT T5OS !OVRD 4E
%DMINISTR%TIV ORDR NO. $$-(21 D%TD + O!TO4R $221, IN
:5I!5 !%S, T5 DSI)N%TD R)ION%@ TRI%@ !O6RTS S5%@@
!ONTIN6 TO O4SRV T5 PROVISIONS T5RIN.
!ONSIDRIN) T5%T F6RISDI!TION FOR VIO@%TIONS OF
INT@@!T6%@ PROPRTE RI)5TS 5RIN4FOR MNTIOND IS
NO: !ONFIND K!@6SIV@E TO T5 R)ION%@ TRI%@ !O6RTS,
T5 DSI)N%TION OF MTROPO@IT%N TRI%@ !O6RTS %ND
M6NI!IP%@ TRI%@ !O6RTS IN !ITIS 6NDR %DMINISTR%TIV
ORDR NO. $$-(21 IS D@TD %ND :IT5DR%:N.
Despite the ad.inistrative order of the !ourt, the MT! continued #ith the trial. )loria
P. To.boc, %nal/st of the 4ureau of Food and Dru"s %d.inistration &4F%D', testified
on %u"ust +1, $22>. In the .eanti.e, %rticles $<< and $<2 of the Revised Penal
!ode #ere a.ended b/ R.%. No. <+2-, other#ise 8no#n as the Intellectual Propert/
!ode. T#o /ears thereafter, %lfredo @o.bo/, supervisor of Pi9a8a.asarap
!orporation, testified on %u"ust -,, $222.
On Dece.ber $+, $222, the prosecution filed its for.al offer of evidence.
$3
In the
.eanti.e, on October ++, $222, %tt/. Foselito @. @i. had .oved to #ithdra# his
appearance as counsel for petitionersL
$1
the court had "ranted the .otion on October
+1, $222L
$*
and the ne# counsel of petitioners, 4albastro and %ssociates, had
entered its appearance on Nove.ber +3, $222.
$>
On Februar/ $1, +,,,, the court resolved to ad.it the docu.entar/ evidence of the
prosecution eJcept Jhibit 77 #hich #as reIected b/ the court, and Jhibits 7I7 and
7F7 #hich #ere #ithdra#n.
$<
The prosecution rested its case.
On March $,, +,,,, petitioners, throu"h their ne# counsel, filed a Motion for @eave
to File De.urrer to vidence.
$2
The court "ranted the .otion. In their de.urrer,
+,

petitioners ar"ued that a Iud".ent of ac0uittal is proper since no sufficient evidence
#as presented to prove be/ond reasonable doubt that the/ are "uilt/ of the offense
char"ed. The prosecution #as not able to establish that the/ "ave their "oods the
"eneral appearance of another .anufacturer or dealer and that the/ had the intent to
defraud the public or Pi9a8a.asarap !orporation. Moreover, under both R.%. No.
$**, as a.ended, and its repealin" la#, R.%. No. <+2-, the RT! had Iurisdiction over
the cri.e char"edL hence, the a.ended co.plaint should be 0uashed.
The prosecution opposed the de.urrer to evidence, contendin" that it had presented
proof be/ond reasonable doubt of the "uilt of petitioners for the cri.e char"ed. The
prosecution .aintained that, under 4atas Pa.bansa &4.P.' 4l". $+2, the MT! had
Iurisdiction over the cri.e char"ed in the li"ht of the i.posable penalt/ for unfair
co.petition under %rticle $<2 of the Revised Penal !ode.
+$
In its Resolution dated Ma/ $*, +,,,,
++
the court held that there #as pri.a facie
evidence #hich, if unrebutted or not contradicted, #ould be sufficient to #arrant the
conviction of petitioners. 5o#ever, the court ruled that the RT! #as vested b/ la#
#ith the eJclusive and ori"inal Iurisdiction to tr/ and decide char"es for violation of
R.%. No. $** as a.ended b/ R.%. No. <+2-. %ccordin"l/, the court denied the
de.urrer to evidence and ordered the records of the case for#arded to the Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate action.
The !it/ Prosecutor for#arded the case records to the !ler8 of !ourt of RT!, 4r. *-,
Tarlac !it/.
+-
On Fune $2, +,,,, the RT! ordered the !it/ Prosecutor to conduct the
re0uisite preli.inar/ investi"ation and to file the necessar/ Infor.ation if he found
probable cause a"ainst petitioners.
The !it/ Prosecutor found probable cause based on the findin"s of the MT! in its
Ma/ $*, +,,, Resolution that there #as a pri.a facie case a"ainst petitioners.
+3
5e
filed an Infor.ation in the RT! on Ful/ $<, +,,, for violation of %rticle $<2 of the
Revised Penal !ode.
+1
The Infor.ation reads?
That on or about Februar/ $3, $223 and so.eti.e prior thereto, at Tarlac
!it/, and #ithin the Iurisdiction of this 5onorable !ourt, the accused, bein"
the o#ner of a business establish.ent #ith principal address at Phase I,
Northern 5ills Subd., San Vicente, Tarlac !it/, the accused, conspirin",
confederatin" and helpin" one another did then and there #illfull/,
unla#full/ and feloniousl/, in unfair co.petition #ith the intention of
deceivin" and defraudin" the public in "eneral and the PIB%C%M%S%R%P
!ORPOR%TION, the na.e 7M%R!% PIB%,7 and sell or offer for sale so/
sauce .anufactured b/ the. #ith the brand na.e 7Marca Pi9a,7 #hich is a
version of the trade.ar8, and usin" the bottles of Pi9a8a.asarap
!orporation and substituted the contents thereof #ith those .anufactured
b/ the accused and passin" to the public the products, thereb/ inducin" the
public to believe that the so/ sauce sold or offered for sale b/ the accused
are "enuine 7M%R!% PIB%7 so/ sauce, to the da.a"e and preIudice of
PIB%C%M%S%R%P !ORPOR%TION.
!ONTR%RE TO @%:.
+*
2
Petitioners filed a Motion to Duash the Infor.ation,
+>
alle"in" that their ri"hts to due
process and speed/ trial had been violated. Other than the notice of hearin" sent b/
the court, the/ never received a subpoena #hich re0uired the. to sub.it their
evidence durin" a preli.inar/ investi"ation. Petitioners further averred that certain
dela/s in the trial are per.issible, especiall/ #hen such dela/s are due to
uncontrollable circu.stances or b/ accident. In this case, the inordinate dela/ #as
obviousl/ brou"ht b/ the lac8adaisical attitude ta8en b/ the prosecutor in prosecutin"
the case. Petitioners pointed out that there #as alread/ a dela/ of siJ &*' lon" /ears
fro. the ti.e the initial co.plaint #as filed, and that the/ had alread/ been
preIudiced. Their life, libert/ and propert/, not to .ention their reputation, have been
at ris8 as there has been no deter.ination of the issue of #hether or not to indict
the.. Thus, the case should be dis.issed in order to free the. fro. further
capricious and oppressive dilator/ tactics of the prosecution. Indeed, their ri"ht to a
speed/ trial is part of due process, both of #hich are "uaranteed b/ no less than the
funda.ental la# itself. The/ insisted that the/ should not be .ade to unIustl/ a#ait
the prosecution of the char"es a"ainst the..
In opposition, the !it/ Prosecutor clarified that subpoenas #ere sent to the parties
durin" the preli.inar/ investi"ation. In fact, petitioner 5enr/ 6/ appeared and
sub.itted the case for resolution #ithout sub.ittin" additional evidence. %lso, the
proceedin"s in the MT! #ere not part of preli.inar/ investi"ation but the trial on the
.erits.
+<
On Septe.ber <, +,,,, the court issued an Order den/in" the .otion to 0uash.
+2
The
court ruled that?
:hile there .ust have been a protracted trial since the case #as ori"inall/
filed before the Municipal Trial !ourt, a period of about siJ &*' /ears, as the
accused contends, nevertheless the dela/ if an/, is partl/ attributable to the
accused. GThe/H allo#ed the prosecution to rest the evidence in chief before
raisin" the issue of lac8 of Iurisdiction. 5ad the accused i..ediatel/ raised
the issue of lac8 of Iurisdiction, this case could have been filed ane# before
the RT!. The accused allo#ed the.selves to be arrai"ned #ithout raisin"
the issue of Iurisdiction. In fact, the prosecution GhadH rested its evidence in
chief.
The parties .a/G,H ho#everG,H stipulate in the pre(trial that all the
proceedin"s ta8en before the Municipal Trial !ourt are auto.aticall/
reproduced and are considered part of the prosecution=s evidence, so that
the trial #ill no# be #ith respect to the reception of defense evidence.
-,
Petitioners filed a .otion for reconsideration of the Order
-$
#hich the trial court
denied.
-+
%t the sa.e ti.e, the court "ranted the oral .otion of the prosecution to
a.end the Infor.ation to reflect in its caption that the la# violated b/ the accused is
R.%. No. <+2- and not %rticle $<2 of the Revised Penal !ode. On October $+, +,,,,
the !it/ Prosecutor filed an a.ended Infor.ation. The inculpator/ portion reads?
That on or about Februar/ $3, $223 and so.eti.es prior thereto, at Tarlac
!it/, and #ithin the Iurisdiction of this 5onorable !ourt, the accused, bein"
the o#ner of a business establish.ent #ith principal address at Phase I,
Northern 5ills Subd., San Vicente, Tarlac !it/, the accused, conspirin",
confederatin" and helpin" one another did then and there #illfull/,
unla#full/ and feloniousl/, in Violation of Sec. $*< of R.%. No. <+2- #ith the
intention of deceivin" and defraudin" the public in "eneral and the
PIB%C%M%S%R%P !ORPOR%TION, the na.e 7M%R!% PIB%,7 and sell or
offer for sale so/ sauce .anufactured b/ the. #ith the brand na.e 7Marca
Pi9a,7 #hich is a version of the trade.ar8, and usin" the bottles of
Pi9a8a.asarap !orporation and substituted the contents thereof #ith those
.anufactured b/ the accused and passin" to the public the products,
thereb/ inducin" the public to believe that the so/ sauce sold or offered for
sale b/ the accused are "enuine 7M%R!% PIB%7 so/ sauce, to the da.a"e
and preIudice of PIB%C%M%S%R%P !ORPOR%TION.
!ONTR%RE TO @%:.
--
Petitioners then filed before the !% a petition for certiorari #ith pra/er for te.porar/
restrainin" order and preli.inar/ inIunction,
-3
on the sole "round that respondent
Iud"e co..itted "rave abuse of discretion in den/in" their .otion to 0uash based on
violation of their ri"ht to a speed/ trial. The/ clai.ed that there #as no active effort
on their part to dela/ the case as the/ .erel/ attended the scheduled hearin"s and
participated in the preli.inar/ investi"ation. On the contrar/, it is the prosecution that
has the un.iti"ated obli"ation to i..ediatel/ file the Infor.ation #ith the proper
court. The public prosecutor is supposedl/ 8no#led"eable of the eJistin" la#s and
Iurisprudence since his office has the delicate tas8 of prosecutin" cases in behalf of
the State. 6nder the Rules on !ri.inal Procedure, he is the officer responsible for
the direction and control of cri.inal prosecutions. In the case at bar, the public
prosecutor failed in his bounden dut/ b/ ne"lectin" to file the case in the court of
co.petent Iurisdiction. The prosecution could not advance a sin"le reason to Iustif/
the procedural error and instead pointed its accusin" fin"er to petitioners #ho are
Iust ordinar/ citi;ens. Their failure to call the attention of the prosecution is neither
ac0uiescence nor consent on their part. :hile their for.er la#/er #as obviousl/
lac8luster in their defense, the act of the counsel should not deprive the. of their
constitutional ri"ht to a speed/ trial. For petitioners, the prosecution=s blunder in
procedure and i"norance of eJistin" la#s and Iurisprudence far out#ei"h #hatever
.ini.al participation, if an/, the/ had in the protracted proceedin"s.
On March +$, +,,-, the !% dis.issed the petition.
-1
The fallo of the decision reads?
5HERE6ORE, pre.ises considered, the instant petition is hereb/
%#SM#SSE% for lac8 of .erit. The Orders dated Septe.ber <, +,,, and
October 2, +,,, of the public respondent are hereb/ %#SM#SSE%.
-*
In dis.issin" the petition, the appellate court ratiocinated that?
3
GTHhe ri"ht to a speed/ disposition of a case, li8e the ri"ht to speed/ trial, is
dee.ed violated onl/ #hen the proceedin" is attended b/ veJatious,
capricious and oppressive dela/s7 &Castillo v. Sandiganbayan, -+< S!R%
*2, >*'L 7or #hen unIustified postpone.ents of the trial are as8ed for and
secured, or #hen #ithout cause or Iustifiable .otive a lon" period of ti.e is
allo#ed to elapse #ithout the part/ havin" his case tried.7 &Binay v.
Sandiganbayan, -$* S!R% *1, 2-'
In the instant case, aside fro. the fact that it too8 al.ost siJ /ears for the
prosecution to co.plete the presentation of its evidence, petitioners failed to
sho# that the dela/, if ever there is an/, #as caused solel/ b/ the
prosecution. Neither did the petitioners sho# that the proceedin"s before
the Municipal Trial !ourt #as attended b/ veJatious, capricious and
oppressive dela/s attributable to the prosecution or that unIustified
postpone.ents of the trial #ere as8ed for and secured b/ the prosecution to
the preIudice of the petitioners. The fact alone that the prosecution had
consu.ed siJ &*' /ears to co.plete its presentation of evidence, #ithout
an/ alle"ation or proof that the prosecution has caused unreasonable
dela/s or that the proceedin" #as attended b/ veJatious, capricious and
oppressive dela/s, to Our .inds is not sufficient for the application upon the
petitioners of their !onstitutional ri"ht to speed/ trial. 7% .ere .athe.atical
rec8onin" of the ti.e involved, therefore, #ould not be sufficient. In the
application of the !onstitutional "uarantee of the ri"ht to speed/ disposition
of cases, particular re"ard .ust also be ta8en of the facts and
circu.stances peculiar to each case.7 &Binay v. Sandiganbayan, supra, p.
2-'. In the case at bar, petitioners failed to present, for Our perusal, the
circu.stances attendin" the trial of their case before the Municipal Trial
!ourt.
The onl/ controvers/ of the instant case lies in the fact that the Municipal
Trial !ourt #hich heard the case has no Iurisdiction over the said case.
:hile it .a/ be conceded that the prosecution erred in not filin" the
infor.ation a"ainst the petitioners to a proper court, still, petitioners are not
bla.eless in this re"ard. Petitioners, throu"h their counsel, had activel/
participated in the proceedin"s before the Municipal Trial !ourt. Petitioners
had to #ait for al.ost siJ &*' /ears to elapse before the/ brou"ht to the
attention of the Municipal Trial !ourt that it had no Iurisdiction to hear the
case a"ainst the petitioners. Petitioners have, b/ reason of their
participation in the proceedin"s before the Municipal Trial !ourt and also b/
reason of their silence and inaction, allo#ed the Municipal Trial !ourt to
proceed #ith a case for siJ &*' /ears despite absence of Iurisdiction of such
court to hear the case. :e cannot allo# the petitioners to reap fro. their
acts or o.issions. 7% liti"ation is not a "a.e of technicalities in #hich one,
.ore deepl/ schooled and s8illed in the subtle art of .ove.ent and
position, entraps and destro/s the other.7 &Fortune Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, ++2 S!R% -11, -*3'
7The constitutional privile"e #as never intended as furnishin" a technical
.eans for escapin" trial.7 &Esguerra v. Court of First Instance of Manila, et
al., 21 Phil. *,2, *$$(*$+' 7The ri"ht of an accused to a speed/ trial is
"uaranteed to hi. b/ the !onstitution, but the sa.e shall not be utili;ed to
deprive the State of a reasonable opportunit/ of fairl/ indictin" cri.inals. It
secures ri"hts to an accused, but it does not preclude the ri"hts of public
Iustice. &Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, -++ S!R% *11, **>'
->
Petitioners filed a .otion for reconsideration, #hich the appellate court denied.
-<
Petitioners sou"ht relief fro. this !ourt on a petition for revie#, alle"in" that?
T5 5ONOR%4@ !O6RT OF %PP%@S !OMMITTD )R%V %46S
OF DIS!RTION %MO6NTIN) TO @%!C OR K!SS OF F6RISDI!TION
:5N IT %FFIRMD T5 !O6RT A !"=S DNI%@ OF PTITIONRS=
MOTION TO D6%S5, 4%SD ON VIO@%TION OF T5IR RI)5T TO
SPDE TRI%@ &S!. $*, %RT. -, $2<> !ONSTIT6TION'.
-2
Petitioners reiterate their ar"u.ents in the !% to support the present petition. The/
aver that?
In this case, the prosecution too8 siJ &*' lon" and "ruelin" /ears before it
filed an Infor.ation #ith a co.petent court, despite the fact that Iurisdiction
of the Re"ional Trial !ourts over trade.ar8 cases re.ained unchan"ed
since the birth of the Trade.ar8 @a#. Surel/, this inordinate dela/ can be
considered a 7veJatious, capricious and oppressive dela/7 #hich is
constitutionall/ i.per.issible in this Iurisdiction pursuant to the ri"ht of the
accused to speed/ trial.
Indeed, petitioners have been preIudiced. Their lives, libert/ and propert/,
not to .ention their reputation have all been put at ris8 for so lon".
The public prosecutor failed to eJplain the reason for the dela/. Truth to tell,
even at this last sta"e, the public prosecutor chooses to re.ain silent #h/ it
had unIustifiabl/ ta8en hi. too lon" to file this case before a co.petent
court. 6nfortunatel/, the !ourt of %ppeals deliberatel/ i"nored this "larin"
fla# co..itted b/ the public prosecutor and instead focused on petitioners=
alle"ed ne"li"ence in not raisin" the issue of Iurisdiction earlier. It further
ruled that due to this fact, petitioners are thus not entirel/ bla.eless for the
dela/ of the trial.
Truth to tell, these findin"s of the !ourt of %ppeals are palpabl/ erroneous.
Firstl/, it is ele.entar/ that Iurisdiction over the subIect .atter .a/ be
raised at an/ sta"e of the proceedin"s. This is because no a.ount of #aiver
4
can confer Iurisdiction on a court over an offense for #hich such Iurisdiction
has not been conferred b/ la# in the first place.
Secondl/, even assu.in" that petitioners failed to raise the issue of
Iurisdiction earlier, still, the/ could not be estopped fro. invo8in" their ri"ht
to speed/ trial. The dela/ to be considered 7partl/ attributable7 to the
accused &#hich could #or8 a"ainst hi. in invo8in" the ri"ht to speed/ trial'
presupposes an active effort of the defendant to dela/ the case &Manabat v.
#imbang, >3 Phil. +21'. There is no violation of the ri"ht to speed/ trial
#here the dela/ is i.putable to the accused &Solis v. Agloro, *- S!R% ->,'.
5ere, it #as the prosecution that had the un.iti"ated obli"ation to file the
Infor.ation #ith the correct court, #ithin a reasonable ti.e. It did not. Such
blunder #as fatal to its cause.
To e.phasi;e, petitioners need not even call the attention of the
prosecution that it had failed to file the case #ith the proper court, contrar/
to the opinion of the !ourt of %ppeals. J J J
3,
J J J J
%lthou"h petitioners a"ree #ith the !ourt of %ppeals that .ere
.athe.atical rec8onin" of ti.e #ould not be sufficient for the application of
the ri"ht to speed/ trial, still, the public prosecutor=s blunder should alread/
be considered 7veJatious, capricious and oppressive7 #arrantin" the
dis.issal of the case.
Indeed, to condone the public prosecutor=s .anner of havin" directed this
case, Iust li8e #hat the !ourt of %ppeals did, .i"ht "ive rise to a disturbin"
precedent #here the constitutional ri"ht of the accused could ver/ #ell be
set aside to Iustif/ the .ishandlin" of the prosecution b/ officers of the
State.
3$
Section $&h', Rule $$1 of the Revised Rules of !ri.inal Procedure provides that the
accused is entitled to a speed/, i.partial and public trial. Section +, Rule $$2 of the
said Rules provides that trial, once co..enced, shall be continuous until ter.inated?
Sec. +. Continuous trial until terminated$ postponements. M Trial, once
co..enced, shall continue fro. da/ to da/ as far as practicable until
ter.inated. It .a/ be postponed for a reasonable period of ti.e for "ood
cause.
The court shall, after consultation #ith the prosecutor and defense counsel,
set the case for continuous trial on a #ee8l/ or other short(ter. trial
calendar at the earliest possible ti.e so as to ensure speed/ trial. In no
case shall the entire trial period eJceed one hundred ei"ht/ &$<,' da/s fro.
the first da/ of trial, eJcept as other#ise authori;ed b/ the Supre.e !ourt.
The ti.e li.itations provided under this section and the precedin" section
shall not appl/ #here special la#s or circulars of the Supre.e !ourt provide
for a shorter period of trial.
5o#ever, an/ period of dela/ resultin" fro. a continuance "ranted b/ the court motu
proprio, or on .otion of either the accused or his counsel, or the prosecution, if the
court "ranted the continuance on the basis of its findin"s set forth in the order that
the ends of Iustice is served b/ ta8in" such action out#ei"h the best interest of the
public and the accused on a speed/ trial, shall be deducted.
The trial court .a/ "rant continuance, ta8in" into account the follo#in" factors?
&a' :hether or not the failure to "rant a continuance in the proceedin"
#ould li8el/ .a8e a continuation of such proceedin" i.possible or result in
a .iscarria"e of IusticeL and
&b' :hether or not the case ta8en as a #hole is so novel, unusual and
co.pleJ, due to the nu.ber of accused or the nature of the prosecution, or
that it is unreasonable to eJpect ade0uate preparation #ithin the periods of
ti.e established therein.
In addition, no continuance under section -&f' of this Rule shall be "ranted
because of con"estion of the court=s calendar or lac8 of dili"ent preparation
or failure to obtain available #itnesses on the part of the prosecutor.
3+
6nder the !onstitution and Section $&>' of Rule $$1 of the Revised Rules of !ri.inal
Procedure, the accused shall be entitled to have a speed/ and i.partial trial.
7Speed/ trial7 is a relative ter. and necessaril/ a fleJible concept.
3-
In deter.inin"
#hether the ri"ht of the accused to a speed/ trial #as violated, the dela/ should be
considered, in vie# of the entiret/ of the proceedin"s.
33
Indeed, .ere .athe.atical
rec8onin" of the ti.e involved #ould not suffice
31
as the realities of ever/da/ life
.ust be re"arded in Iudicial proceedin"s #hich, after all, do not eJist in a vacuu..
3*
%part fro. the constitutional provision and Section $$1, Section $&i' of the Rules of
!ri.inal Procedure, %.O. No. $$-(21 of the !ourt provides that?
The trial of cases for violation of Intellectual Propert/ Ri"hts covered b/ this
%d.inistrative Order shall be i..ediatel/ co..enced and shall continue
fro. da/ to da/ to be ter.inated as far as practicable #ithin siJt/ &*,' da/s
fro. initial trial. Fud".ent thereon shall be rendered #ithin thirt/ &-,' da/s
fro. date of sub.ission for decision.
More than a decade after the $2>+ leadin" 6.S. case of Bar%er v. &ingo
3>
#as
pro.ul"ated, this !ourt, in Martin v. 'er,
3<
be"an adoptin" the 7balancin" test7 to
deter.ine #hether a defendant=s ri"ht to a speed/ trial has been violated. %s this test
5
necessaril/ co.pels the courts to approach speed/ trial cases on an ad (oc basis,
the conduct of both the prosecution and defendant are #ei"hed apropos the four(fold
factors, to #it? &$' len"th of the dela/L &+' reason for the dela/L &-' defendant=s
assertion or non(assertion of his ri"htL and &3' preIudice to defendant resultin" fro.
the dela/.
32
None of these ele.ents, ho#ever, is either a necessar/ or sufficient
conditionL the/ are related and .ust be considered to"ether #ith other relevant
circu.stances. These factors have no talis.anic 0ualities as courts .ust still en"a"e
in a difficult and sensitive balancin" process.
1,
A. )engt( of t(e Delay
The len"th of dela/ is to so.e eJtent a 7tri""erin" .echanis..7 6ntil there is so.e
dela/, #hich is presu.ptivel/ preIudicial, there is no necessit/ to in0uire into the
other three factors. Nevertheless, due to the i.precision of the ri"ht to a speed/ trial,
the len"th of dela/ that #ill provo8e such an in0uir/ is necessaril/ dependent upon
the peculiar circu.stances of the case.
1$
B. *eason for t(e Delay
6nder Section 2, Rule $$2 of the Revised Rules of !ri.inal Procedure, the accused
have the burden to prove the factual basis of the .otion to 0uash the Infor.ation on
the "round of denial of their ri"ht to a speed/ trial.
1+
The/ .ust de.onstrate that the
dela/ in the proceedin"s is veJatious, capricious, and oppressiveL or is caused b/
unIustified postpone.ents that #ere as8ed for and securedL or that #ithout cause or
Iustifiable .otive, a lon" period of ti.e is allo#ed to elapse #ithout the case bein"
tried.
1-
On the other hand, the prosecution is re0uired to present evidence
establishin" that the dela/ #as reasonabl/ attributed to the ordinar/ processes of
Iustice, and that petitioners suffered no serious preIudice be/ond that #hich ensued
after an inevitable and ordinar/ dela/.
13
The records bear out the contention of petitioners that there had been a considerable
dela/ in the trial in the MT!. 6pon .otionNa"ree.ent of petitioners and the
prosecution, or because of the Ioint absences, the trial of the case #as dela/ed for
.ore than $$ .onths.
11
In its o#n instance, the MT! also reset so.e of the trial
dates in order to correct .ista8es in schedulin" or because the #itnesses #ere not
dul/ notified,
1*
thus, dela/in" the trial of the case for an additional seven .onths.
ven petitioners contributed to the dela/ of .ore than five .onths M the/ or their
for.er counsel #ere either absent or .oved for postpone.ents to attend another
pendin" case or due to health concerns.
1>
The dela/ of about +$ .onths, coverin" $1
re(settin"s, can be attributed to the prosecution. 5o#ever, eJcept in five instances,
#hen the trial #as reset because the private prosecutor had to attend to so.e
professional
1<
and personal .atters,
12
the dela/s #ere brou"ht about because of the
recent en"a"e.ent of le"al service,
*,
absence of the public prosecutor,
*$
and
unavailabilit/ of docu.ents
*+
and #itnesses.
*-

Not onl/ the petitioners but the State as #ell #ere preIudiced b/ the inordinate dela/
in the trial of the case. It too8 the prosecution .ore than four /ears to rest its case
after presentin" onl/ three #itnesses. 5ad the prosecution, petitioner and the trial
court been assiduous in avoidin" an/ inordinate dela/ in the trial, the prosecution
could have rested its case .uch earlier. The court even failed to order the absent
counselNprosecutorN#itnesses to eJplainNIustif/ their absences or cite the. for
conte.pt. The speed/ trial .andated b/ the !onstitution and the Revised Rules of
!ri.inal Procedure is as .uch the responsibilit/ of the prosecution, the trial court
and petitioners to the eJtent that the trial is inordinatel/ dela/ed, and to that eJtent
the interest of Iustice is preIudiced.
The case before the RT! should not be dis.issed si.pl/ because the public
prosecution did not .ove for the dis.issal of the case in the MT! based on %.O. No.
$,3(2* declarin" that the RT! has eJclusive Iurisdiction over cases under %rticles
$<< and $<2 of the Revised Penal !odeL or for failure of the MT! to .otu proprio
dis.iss the case on that "round. The !it/ Prosecutor then believed in "ood faith,
albeit erroneousl/, that under R.%. No. >*2$ #hich a.ended 4.P. 4l". $+2, the MT!
had Iurisdiction over the cri.e char"ed.
The .ista8e of the !it/ Prosecutor and the failure of the MT! to dis.iss the case
.otu proprio should not preIudice the interest of the State to prosecute cri.inal
offenses and, .ore i.portantl/, defeat the ri"ht of the offended part/ to redress for
its "rievance. Si"nificantl/, petitioners do not attribute to the prosecution or to the
MT! an/ .alice aforethou"ht or conscious disre"ard of their ri"ht to a speed/ trialL
nor have substantiall/ proven the sa.e b/ clear and convincin" evidence. 5ence,
absent sho#in" of bad faith or "ross ne"li"ence, dela/ caused b/ the lapse of the
prosecution is not in itself violative of the ri"ht to a speed/ trial.
Different #ei"hts should be assi"ned to various reasons b/ #hich the prosecution
Iustifies the dela/. % deliberate atte.pt to dela/ the trial in order to ha.per the
defense should be #ei"hed heavil/ a"ainst the prosecution. % .ore neutral reason
such as ne"li"ence or overcro#ded courts should be #ei"hed less heavil/ but
nevertheless should be considered since the ulti.ate responsibilit/ for such
circu.stances .ust rest #ith the "overn.ent rather than #ith defendant.
*3
In Corpu+ v. Sandiganbayan,
*1
the !ourt had carefull/ balanced the societal interest
in the case, #hich involved the so(called 7taJ credit certificates sca.,7 and the need
to "ive substance to the defendants= constitutional ri"hts. In said suit, #e upheld the
decision of the Sandi"anba/an &Special Fourth Division' that the dis.issal of the
cases #as too drastic, precipitate and un#arranted. :hile the !ourt reco"ni;ed that
defendants #ere preIudiced b/ the dela/ in the reinvesti"ation of the cases and the
sub.ission of a co.plete report b/ the O.buds.anNSpecial Prosecutor to the
Sandi"anba/an, #e underscored that the State should not be preIudiced and
deprived of its ri"ht to prosecute cases si.pl/ because of the ineptitude or
nonchalance of the O.buds.anNSpecial Prosecutor. 7%n over;ealous or precipitate
dis.issal of a case .a/ enable defendant, #ho .a/ be "uilt/, to "o free #ithout
6
havin" been tried, thereb/ infrin"in" the societal interest in tr/in" people accused of
cri.es b/ "rantin" the. i..uni;ation because of le"al error.7
**
The sa.e observation #as .ade in 'alencia v. Sandiganbayan.
*>
5ere, the !ourt
noted the hapha;ard .anner b/ #hich the prosecutor handled the liti"ation for the
State #hen he rested the case #ithout adducin" evidence for the prosecution and
si.pl/ rel/in" on the Foint Stipulation of Facts, #hich the accused did not even si"n
before its sub.ission to the Sandi"anba/an. In allo#in" the prosecution to present
additional evidence and in dis.issin" the clai. of the accused that his constitutional
ri"ht to a speed/ trial had been violated, #e ruled?
%s si"nificant as the ri"ht of an accused to a speed/ trial is the ri"ht of the
State to prosecute people #ho violate its penal la#s. The ri"ht to a speed/
trial is dee.ed violated onl/ #hen the proceedin" is attended b/ veJatious,
capricious and oppressive dela/s J J J GTHo erroneousl/ put pre.iu. on the
ri"ht to speed/ trial in the instant case and den/ the prosecution=s pra/er to
adduce additional evidence #ould lo"icall/ result in the dis.issal of the
case for the State. There is no difference bet#een an order outri"htl/
dis.issin" the case and an order allo#in" the eventual dis.issal thereof.
4oth #ould set a dan"erous precedent #hich enables the accused, #ho
.a/ be "uilt/, to "o free #ithout havin" been validl/ tried, thereb/ infrin"in"
the interest of the societ/.
*<
!ertainl/, the ri"ht to speed/ trial cannot be invo8ed #here to sustain the sa.e
#ould result in a clear denial of due process to the prosecution. It should not operate
in deprivin" the State of its inherent prero"ative to prosecute cri.inal cases or
"enerall/ in seein" to it that all those #ho approach the bar of Iustice is afforded fair
opportunit/ to present their side.
*2
For it is not onl/ the StateL .ore so, the offended
part/ #ho is entitled to due process in cri.inal cases.
>,
In essence, the ri"ht to a
speed/ trial does not preclude the people=s e0uall/ i.portant ri"ht to public Iustice.
>$

Thus, as succinctl/ decreed in State v. Mc#ague?
>+
The constitutional and statutor/ provisions for a speed/ trial are for the
protection of the defendant, but that does not .ean that the state is the onl/
one that .a/ initiate action. There is reall/ no reason for the courts to free
an accused si.pl/ because a dilator/ prosecutor has ="one to sleep at the
s#itch= #hile the defendant and his counsel rest in silence. These solicitous
provisions are not to be used as offensive #eapons, but are for the benefit
of defendants #ho clai. their protection. The/ are a shield, and the/ =.ust
not be left han"in" on the #all of the ar.or/.= It is for the protection of
personal ri"hts, not to e.barrass the ad.inistration of the cri.inal la# nor
to defeat public Iustice.
4e that as it .a/, the conduct of the !it/ Prosecutor and the MT! .ust not pass
#ithout ad.onition. This !ourt .ust e.phasi;e that the State, throu"h the court and
the public prosecutor, has the absolute dut/ to insure that the cri.inal Iustice s/ste.
is consistent #ith due process and the constitutional ri"hts of the accused. Societ/
has a particular interest in brin"in" s#ift prosecutions, and the societ/=s
representatives are the ones #ho should protect that interest. The trial court and the
prosecution are not #ithout responsibilit/ for the eJpeditious trial of cri.inal cases.
The burden for trial pro.ptness is not solel/ upon the defense. The ri"ht to a speed/
trial is constitutionall/ "uaranteed and, as such, is not to be honored onl/ for the
vi"ilant and the 8no#led"eable.
>-
C. ,etitioners- Assertion of t(e *ig(t
The assertion of the ri"ht to a speed/ trial is entitled to stron" evidentiar/ #ei"ht in
deter.inin" #hether defendant is bein" deprived thereof. Failure to clai. the ri"ht
#ill .a8e it difficult to prove that there #as a denial of a speed/ trial.
>3
Jcept in onl/ one instance in this case,
>1
the records are bereft of an/ evidence that
petitioners, throu"h counsel, have bothered to raise their obIection to the several re(
settin" of the trial dates. This is not uneJpected since, as alread/ sho#n, the reasons
for the dela/ are not in the.selves totall/ ineJcusable or unreasonable. Moreover,
petitioners activel/ participated in the trial #hen the prosecution presented its
evidence, as the/ scrutini;ed the docu.entar/ evidence and cross(eJa.ined the
#itnesses. 6ntil the filin" of the .otion to 0uash in the RT!, the/ never contested the
prosecutorial proceedin"s nor ti.el/ challen"ed the pendenc/ of the case in the
MT!.
:hile it is true that lac8 of Iurisdiction .a/ be assailed at an/ sta"e of the
proceedin"s, such defense .ust be seasonabl/ raised at the earliest possible
opportunit/. Other#ise, active participation in the trial #ould estop a part/ fro. later
challen"in" such #ant of Iurisdiction.
>*
In the sa.e vein, one=s failure to ti.el/ 0uestion the dela/ in the trial of a case #ould
be an i.plied acceptance of such dela/ and a #aiver of the ri"ht to 0uestion the
sa.e. Jcept #hen other#ise eJpressl/ so provided, the speed/ trial ri"ht, li8e an/
other ri"ht conferred b/ the !onstitution or statute, .a/ be #aived #hen not
positivel/ asserted.
>>
% part/=s silence .a/ a.ount to laches.
><
The ri"ht to a speed/
trial is a privile"e of the accused. If he does not clai. it, he should not co.plain. R.%.
No. <32- &Speed/ Trial %ct of $22<' is a .eans of enforcin" Section $3&+', %rticle III
of the !onstitution.
>2
The spirit of the la# is that the accused .ust "o on record in the
attitude of de.andin" a trial or resistin" dela/. If he does not do this, he .ust be
held, in la#, to have #aived the privile"e.
This !ourt cannot subscribe to petitioners= untirin" ar"u.ent that, bein" 7ordinar/
citi;ens,7 the/ should not be .ade to suffer fro. the 7lac8luster7 perfor.ance of their
for.er counsel #ho failed to reco"ni;e the MT!=s #ant of Iurisdiction. Too often #e
have held that a client is bound b/ the acts, .ista8es or ne"li"ence of his counsel.
<,

This is, as it should be, since a counsel has the i.plied authorit/ to do all acts #hich
are necessar/ or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and .ana"e.ent of the suit
in behalf of his client. %n/ act perfor.ed #ithin the scope of his "eneral and i.plied
7
authorit/ is, in the e/es of the la#, re"arded as the act of the client.
<$
If the rule #ere
other#ise, there #ould be no end to liti"ation so lon" as a ne# counsel could be
e.plo/ed #ho #ould alle"e and sho# that the prior counsel had not been sufficientl/
dili"ent, eJperienced, or learned.
<+
It #ould enable ever/ part/ to render inutile an
adverse order or decision throu"h the si.ple eJpedient of alle"in" "ross ne"li"ence
on the part of the counsel.
<-
ver/ shortco.in" of a counsel could be the subIect of
challen"e b/ his client throu"h another counsel #ho, if he is also found #antin",
#ould li8e#ise be diso#ned b/ the sa.e client throu"h another counsel, and so on
ad infinitum.
<3
Proceedin"s #ould then be indefinite, tentative and at ti.es, subIect to
reopenin" b/ the si.ple subterfu"e of replacin" counsel.
<1
:hile the rule ad.its of certain eJceptions,
<*
#e find none present in this case. Other
than his obvious failure to assert lac8 of Iurisdiction, %tt/. @i. undeniabl/ represented
the cause of his clients in the MT! proceedin"s. Interestin"l/, their ne# counsel,
#ittin"l/ or un#ittin"l/, raised the issue of Iurisdiction onl/ four .onths after it entered
its appearance,
<>
thus, addin" to the dela/.
D. ,re.udice to t(e ,etitioners
In the Bar%er case,
<<
the different interests of a defendant #hich .a/ be affected b/
the violation of the ri"ht to a speed/ trial #ere identified. It #as held that preIudice
should be assessed in the li"ht of the interests of a defendant #hich the speed/ trial
ri"ht #as desi"ned to protect, na.el/? &$' to prevent oppressive pretrial
incarcerationL &+' to .ini.i;e anJiet/ and concern of the accusedL and &-' to li.it the
possibilit/ that the defense #ill be i.paired. Of these, the .ost serious is the last,
because the inabilit/ of a defendant to ade0uatel/ prepare his case s8e#s the
fairness of the entire s/ste.. If #itnesses die or disappear durin" a dela/, the
preIudice is obvious. There is also preIudice if defense #itnesses are unable to recall
accuratel/ events of the distant past. @oss of .e.or/, ho#ever, is not al#a/s
reflected in the record because #hat has been for"otten can rarel/ be sho#n. ven if
an accused is not incarcerated prior to trial, he is still disadvanta"ed b/ restraints on
his libert/ and b/ livin" under a cloud of anJiet/, suspicion, and often hostilit/.
<2
%fter
all, arrest is a public act that .a/ seriousl/ interfere #ith the defendant=s libert/,
#hether he is free on bail or not, and that .a/ disrupt his e.plo/.ent, drain his
financial resources, curtail his associations, subIect hi. to public oblo0u/, and create
anJiet/ in hi., his fa.il/ and friends.
2,
%"ain, a perusal of the records failed to reveal that the dela/ in brin"in" petitioners to
trial in a court of co.petent Iurisdiction caused the. an/ preIudice tanta.ount to
deprivation of their ri"ht to a speed/ trial. Petitioners in this case #ere not subIected
to pretrial incarceration, oppressive or other#ise, thus eli.inatin" the first 4ar8er
consideration bearin" on preIudice.
%s to the .ini.i;ation of anJiet/ and concern of the accused, there is no sho#in"
that petitioners suffered undue pressures in this respect. Mere reference to a "eneral
asseveration that their 7life, libert/ and propert/, not to .ention reputation7 have been
preIudiced is not enou"h. There .ust be conclusive factual basis, as this !ourt
cannot rel/ on pure speculation or "uess#or8. Surel/, a pendin" cri.inal case .a/
cause trepidation but, as stressed in Bar%er, the standard here is .ini.i;ation, not
necessaril/ eli.ination of the natural conse0uences of an indict.ent. :hile this is
not to be brushed off li"htl/, it is not b/ itself sufficient to support a clai. of denial of
the ri"ht to a speed/ trial.
There is no factual basis for the clai. of petitioners that #e are not supplied #ith an/
specific alle"ation in the record, nor #itnesses or evidence .a/ beco.e unavailable
because of the dela/s in this case. To repeat, the clai. of i.pair.ent of defense
because of dela/ .ust be specific and not b/ .ere conIecture. Va"ue assertions of
faded .e.or/ #ill not suffice. Failure to clai. that particular evidence had been lost
or had disappeared defeats speed/ trial clai..
%s neither the specific t/pes of preIudice .entioned in Bar%er nor an/ others have
been brou"ht to the !ourt=s attention, #e are constrained to dis.iss petitioners=
clai.. The passa"e of ti.e alone, #ithout a si"nificant deprivation of libert/ or
i.pair.ent of the abilit/ to properl/ defend oneself, is not absolute evidence of
preIudice. The ri"ht to a speed/ trial is not pri.aril/ intended to prevent preIudice to
the defense caused b/ the passa"e of ti.eL that interest is protected pri.aril/ b/ the
due process clause and the statutes of li.itations.
2$
In several cases #here it is .anifest that due process of la# or other ri"hts
"uaranteed b/ the !onstitution or statutes has been denied, this !ourt has not
faltered to accord the so(called 7radical relief7 to 8eep accused fro. endurin" the
ri"ors and eJpense of a full(blo#n trial.
2+
In this case, ho#ever, there appears no
persuasive, .uch less co.pellin", "round to allo# the sa.e relief for absence of
clear and convincin" sho#in" that the dela/ #as unreasonable or arbitrar/ and #as
seasonabl/ obIected to b/ petitioners.
#N 1#GHT O6 "11 THE 6OREGO#NG, the instant petition is %EN#E% for lac8 of
.erit. The March +$, +,,- Decision and Ful/ $>, +,,- Resolution of the !ourt of
%ppeals are "66#RME%. The Re"ional Trial !ourt, 4ranch *3, Tarlac !it/, is directed
to proceed #ith the trial on the .erits of the cri.inal case #ith all reasonable and
Iudicious dispatch consistent #ith the ri"ht of petitioners to a speed/ trial. No costs.
SO OR%ERE%.
8