G.R. No. 161330 - Cabarles vs. Maceda

Petitioner Rene Cabarles filed an original action under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to annul the Order issued by Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda in Criminal Case No. 99-0878, People of the Philippines v. Rene aNonoya Cabarles y Adizas, for murder.
The Order dated April 1, 2003, which canceled the scheduled promulgation of judgment, reopened the case for the reception of evidence from two prosecution witnesses not heard during the trial.

On June 18, 1999, Cabarles was charged with murder for allegedly fatally stabbing Antonio Callosa with a fan knife, committing the crime with evident premeditation, treachery, and without justifiable motive.
Cabarles pleaded not guilty, and the trial court scheduled multiple hearing dates for pre-trial, presentation of prosecution evidence (on various dates in 2001), and for the defense evidence.
The prosecution intended to present four witnesses: Flocerfina Callosa, Imelda Pedrosa, Carlos Callosa, and Dr. Romeo T. Salen. Testimony from some witnesses was dispensed with due to stipulations made by the parties.

The prosecution faced difficulties in presenting evidence on the initially scheduled dates.

Several subpoenas issued to Imelda Pedrosa and Dr. Salen were either improperly served or returned undelivered.
Absences of appropriate subpoenas for the June 27, 2001 hearing resulted in the non-appearance of these witnesses.

Despite repeated opportunities—the prosecution was accorded four separate hearing dates (May 23, June 20 and 27, and August 1, 2001)—witness attendance remained inconsistent and problematic.
Consequently, on April 1, 2003, Judge Maceda, acting motu proprio, reopened the case to allow the testimony of the missing prosecution witnesses.

Judge Maceda’s April 1, 2003 Order was motivated by a concern that the prosecution had not been given a full opportunity to present its case, potentially resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
The order mandated a rescheduled hearing on May 1, 2003, for the additional testimony of Imelda Pedrosa and Dr. Romeo T. Salen, with the necessary subpoenas to be issued.
Later, further hearings ensued with mixed results: while Pedrosa eventually testified on June 19, 2003, issues with proper service on Dr. Salen persisted.
Cabarles also filed a demurrer to evidence and ultimately raised objections to the reopening, contending that it constituted a grave abuse of discretion and violated his constitutional rights.

Cabarles argued that the judge gravely abused his discretion by reopening the case before a final judgment had been rendered.
He further contended that his right to due process and speedy disposition of his case was violated by the reopening of the proceedings, which he alleged led to additional delays and prejudicial treatment.

Whether Judge Maceda abused his discretion by issuing the April 1, 2003 Order to reopen the case before the promulgation of judgment, after both parties had rested their cases.
Whether the reopening of the case, in light of issues in the service of subpoenas and scheduling discrepancies, violated Cabarles’ constitutional rights to due process and a speedy disposition of his case.