View full case

NICOLAS PADILLO v. MR. BADERE APAS

FACTS:

The case involves an estafa charge against Badere Apas and Kasuagi Ladjarani filed by Nicolas Padillo. The accused allegedly defrauded Padillo of P168,000.00 by misappropriating funds from the sale of loaded lumber in Labuan, Sabah, Malaysia. After arraignment and waiving their right to pre-trial, the case was scheduled for hearing on September 17 & 18, 1996, but the private prosecutor filed motions for postponement due to a pending petition for inhibition of the prosecutor. These motions were granted, and the hearing was rescheduled to November 21, 1996. Multiple motions for postponement were later filed by both parties, resulting in further delays. The private prosecutor eventually withdrew his appearance in April 1997. The case was rescheduled for several hearings, but postponements continued due to the unavailability of the public prosecutor and scheduling conflicts. On March 22, 2000, the accused moved to dismiss the case based on the prosecution's failure to prosecute, which the trial court granted.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the accused have the right to move for the dismissal of the case based on failure of the prosecution to prosecute.

  2. Whether the repeated postponements of the hearing violate the constitutional right of the accused to a speedy trial.

RULING:

  1. No. The accused do not have the right to move for the dismissal of the case based on failure of the prosecution to prosecute. The court held that it is only the prosecution, as the party primarily responsible for the prosecution of criminal cases, that can move for the dismissal of the case based on its failure to prosecute.

  2. Yes. The repeated postponements of the hearing violate the constitutional right of the accused to a speedy trial. The court held that the repeated postponements, which were mostly caused by the prosecution, have unduly prolonged the proceedings and caused unnecessary delays in the disposition of the case. As a result, the court ruled that the right of the accused to a speedy trial has been violated, and therefore, the case should be dismissed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The prosecution, as the party primarily responsible for the prosecution of criminal cases, has the duty to diligently pursue the case and not cause any unnecessary delays.

  • The accused has the constitutional right to a speedy trial, which includes the right to have a case promptly heard and decided.

  • The right to a speedy trial is violated when there are unreasonable delays in the proceedings, especially when these delays are caused by the prosecution.