PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO A. PAZCOGUIN and RODELITO M. BIAG

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SECOND DIVISION ************** PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA Crim. Case No. 0 - 225 Plaintiff, For: Violation of Section 3601 the TCCP in relation to - versus - Executive Order 156 Members : CASTANEDA, JR., Chairperson CASANOVA, and MINDARO-GRULLA, JJ. REYNALDO A. PAZCOGUIN and Promulgated: RODELITO M. BIAG, MAY 16 ZalZ/ Accu sed. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x RESOLUTION For resolution is accused Rodelito M. Biag's "MOTION TO DISMISS" fil ed on March 27, 2012, with prosecution's "JOINT COMMENT/OPPOSITION [To the Accused Motion to Dismiss']" filed on April 2, 2012. In the said Motion, accused Biag stated that more than five months have elapsed and he still had not been brought for arraignment for failure on the part of the prosecution to appear on the scheduled dates of arraignment. He asked the Court that the case against him be dismissed for failure to prosecute. In support thereof, accused Biag cited the provisions of Section 1(g), Rule 116 of the Revi sed

RESOLUT ION CTA Crim. Case No. 0 72 'i Pagd 2 of 4 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Republic Act No. 8493, Circular No . 38-98 of the Supreme Court in conjunction with his constitutional right to due process and speedy disposition of case . The prosecution, on the other hand, vehemently opposes accused's motion on the ground that there was no capricious or oppressive delays that would justify the dismissal of the case. The prosecution explains that a structural reorganization at the Department of Justice (DOJ), National Prosecution Service (NPS) Task Force on Anti -Smuggling occurred which led to the replacement of the handling trial prosecutor of the case, and that there was a temporary hiatus on th e trial prosecutor who will continuou sly handl e th e prosecution of the case du e to work pressure and heavy volumes of assign ment at th e NPS. Furthermore, the prosecution contends that even assuming there was delay, the same did not prej udice the accused for he had already posted bail and that the accused contributed to th e protracted proceedings such as by hi s filing of a Motion to Suspend Proceedings. The determination on whether or not the accused right to speedy trial is violated, several factors are considered. In the case of Federico Miguel Gibes vs. Han. Dantlo A. Buemio, 1 the Supreme Court held : "In determining whether the accused has been deprived of his right to a speedy disposition of the case and to a speedy trial, four factors mu st be considered : (a) length of delay; (b) the reaso n for the delay; (c) th e defe ndant's assertion of his right; and (d) prej udice to the defendant. " Applying th e abovementioned jurisprudence in th e instant ca se, We find that the accused right to speedy trial wa s violated . 1 G.R. No . 173319, Dece mber 4, 2009 quoting the ruling in People vs. Hernandez, G.R. Nos. 154218 & 154372, August 28, 2006

RESOLUTION CTA Crim. Case No. 0 - 22~ We noted that accused Biag's arraignment, which were set for (4) four times, specifically on December 14, 2011, January 18, 2012, February 15, 2012 and March 14, 2012 did not take place due to the prosecution's failure to appear on the sa id scheduled dates of arraignment. In fact, We ordered the public prosecutor to explain, within fifteen days from receipt of the February 15, 2012 Resolution, the reason for his absence during the scheduled arraignment but the Court did not receive any response from the prosecution. In its Joint Comment/Opposition, the prosecution finally and belatedly explained the alleg ed structural reorgani zation at the DOJ, NPS Task Force on Anti - Smuggling which led to the replacement of the handling trial prosecutor of the case. To our mind, the reason offered by the prosecution is self-serving without any proof. The prosecution failed to establish the fact of existence of said reorgani za tion and when the reorgani zation actually took place. If there was indeed a reorganization at the DOJ, NPS Task Force on Anti -Smuggling, respect and courtesy to the Court and due consideration to accused Biag's rights to speedy trial should have prompted the prosecution to file a manifestation before the Court with regard to the delay that said reorgani zation could bring about. Also, while the prosecution attached a copy of Office Order No . 246 dated March 26, 2012 to its Joint Comment/Opposition, the Court finds the same insufficient to establish the existence of said reorganization. The said Office Ord er merely indicates that a new lawyer is designated to handl e this case in lieu of Ass ista nt State Prosecutor Michael A. Vito Cruz, who is no long er a member of the DOJ Task Force on Anti-Smuggling .

RESOLUTION CTA Crim . Case No . 0 // ~, Finally, while accused Biag was not detained on account of the bail he posted, however, the posting of bail does not necessary mean that he was not prejudiced by the delay in th e arraignment of his case. As held in the case of Jacob vs. Sandiganbayan/ "[e]ven if the accused is not imprisoned prior to trial, he is sti ll disadvantaged by restraints on his liberty and by living under a cloud of anxiety, suspicion and often, hostility. His financial resources may be drained, his association is curtailed, and he is subjected to public obloquy." WHEREFORE, premi ses considered, accused MOTION TO DISMISS is hereby GRANTED . ACCORDINGLY, CTA Crim. Case No. 0 -225, with respect to accused Rodelito M. Biag, is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute . SO ORDERED . ~Q-A_N_i.TQ-~C. cC.AaST.AYN-E~D~A.,"~ 'L � Associate Justice _$f! . M~,~~ c~ CAESAR A. CASANOVA CIELITO N. MINDARO- GRULLA Associate Justice Associate Justice ; G.R. No. 162206, November 17, 2010, citing Corpuz vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162214, November 11, 2004