G.R. No. 186001 - Cabador vs. People

On June 23, 2000, petitioner Antonio Cabador was accused by the public prosecutor before the RTC of Quezon City in Criminal Case Q-00-93291 of murdering Atty. Jun N. Valerio, allegedly in conspiracy with others.
The trial proceeded intermittently for over five years. By February 13, 2006, the prosecution had presented only five witnesses.
The RTC declared the prosecution’s presentation of evidence ended and required a written or formal offer of documentary evidence within 15 days from notice.

The prosecution requested three extensions of time for the formal offer, last extended until July 28, 2006, but still did not comply.
On July 28, 2006, the prosecution requested yet another extension, which was eventually ended on August 1, 2006, the day the formal offer was made.

On August 1, 2006, Cabador filed a motion to dismiss citing delay and invoking his right to a speedy trial, complaining of the slow pace and the prosecution's failure to formally offer evidence within the required period.
Cabador emphasized that the prosecution’s witnesses did not have direct knowledge of his alleged involvement in the crime. He contended that the trial court could not consider any evidence not formally offered.

On August 31, 2006, the RTC treated Cabador’s motion to dismiss as a demurrer to evidence filed without leave of court, declaring that he waived his right to present evidence in his defense.
The RTC deemed the case submitted for decision as to Cabador.
Cabador’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC on February 19, 2007.

Cabador questioned the RTC’s ruling before the CA, which on August 4, 2008, affirmed the RTC’s Order and denied his petition.
The CA also denied his motion for reconsideration on October 28, 2008.

Cabador then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising the issue whether his motion to dismiss was wrongly treated as a demurrer to evidence and whether he effectively waived his right to present evidence.
The Supreme Court considered that the trial proper has two stages: the prosecution’s presentation and the accused’s presentation of evidence in defense.
The Court noted that a demurrer to evidence may result in dismissal of the case and amounts to acquittal, but when filed without leave of court, it waives the right to present defense evidence.

Petitioner detailed the prolonged delay of the trial from his arrest in 2001 to the time of his motion, including numerous postponements mostly due to prosecution’s fault and repeated extensions to file formal offer.
He relied heavily on his constitutional right to speedy trial and highlighted the prejudice caused by the protracted proceedings, including his physical injury (amputation of left leg) and deprived liberty for over five years.
The motion stated the prosecution has “no evidence to consider,” and that witnesses lacked knowledge of his participation, but made no specific attack on individual testimonies or exhibits.

Whether petitioner Cabador’s motion to dismiss filed before the RTC was in fact a demurrer to evidence filed without leave of court.
Whether treating Cabador’s motion as a demurrer to evidence resulted in a waiver of his right to present evidence in his defense and submission of the case for judgment.
Whether petitioner’s right to a speedy trial was violated by the prolonged and delayed proceedings.