Scribd
Upload
289 views

The People of The Philippines vs. Hon. Judge Paterno V. Tac-An G.R. No. 148000 Facts

The Supreme Court of the Philippines reviewed a case where a trial court dismissed criminal falsification charges because only 3 of 11 listed witnesses attended the initial pre-trial and arraignment. The Supreme Court held that under Republic Act 8493, the absence of witnesses alone is not valid grounds for dismissal of a criminal case. While pre-trial is mandatory, the law does not require the presence of the private complainant, complaining witness, or even the accused unless directed by the court. As long as the public prosecutor appears on behalf of the state, the pre-trial can and should proceed regardless of witness attendance.

Uploaded by

somonetohelp
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
289 views

The People of The Philippines vs. Hon. Judge Paterno V. Tac-An G.R. No. 148000 Facts

The Supreme Court of the Philippines reviewed a case where a trial court dismissed criminal falsification charges because only 3 of 11 listed witnesses attended the initial pre-trial and arraignment. The Supreme Court held that under Republic Act 8493, the absence of witnesses alone is not valid grounds for dismissal of a criminal case. While pre-trial is mandatory, the law does not require the presence of the private complainant, complaining witness, or even the accused unless directed by the court. As long as the public prosecutor appears on behalf of the state, the pre-trial can and should proceed regardless of witness attendance.

Uploaded by

somonetohelp
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
HON. JUDGE PATERNO V. TAC-AN
G.R. No.  148000

FACTS:
On February 22, 2000, an Information was filed by the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Batangas City against Mario N. Austria for falsification of public
official document.
The trial court set the arraignment of the accused and the initial pre-trial
on August 1, 2000. Apparently, only three out of eleven witnesses were notified
of said arraignment and pre-trial. The trial court dismissed the case for failure of
said witnesses to appear before it. The public prosecutor asserted that only three
were subpoenaed by the trial court. He argued further that the dismissal of the
case was not authorized under Republic Act No. 8493. However the Court of
Appeals rendered a decision dismissing the petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the absence of witnesses during the pre-trial will amount
to the dismissal of the case.

HELD:
Under R.A. 8493, the absence during pre-trial of any witness for the
prosecution listed in the Information, whether or not said witness is the offended
party or the complaining witness is not a valid ground for the dismissal of a
criminal case. Although under the law, pre-trial is mandatory in criminal cases,
the presence of the private complainant or the complaining witness is however
not required. Even the presence of the accused is not required unless directed by
the trial court. It is enough that the accused is represented by his counsel.
Indeed, even if none of the witnesses listed in the information for the State
appeared for the pre-trial, the same can and should proceed. After all, the public
prosecutor appeared for the State. The public prosecutor is vested with authority
to consider those matters catalogued in Section 2 of R.A. 8493.

You might also like