G.R. No. 211933 - Saldariega vs. Panganiban

On November 8, 2011, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City filed two Informations against petitioner Roberta S. Saldariega for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article 2 of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
The cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. Q-1 1-173055 and Q-1 1-173056 and were raffled to Branch 227 of the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City, presided over by Judge Elvira D.C. Panganiban.

Trial hearings were set for the subject cases; however, key witnesses did not consistently appear. Specifically, PO2 Nelson Villas, the prosecution’s principal witness and one of the arresting officers, failed to appear during the hearings on October 22, 2012 and October 25, 2012.
Although PO2 Villas testified partially on December 10, 2012, subsequent hearings saw continued non-appearance by him and by PO3 Rionaldo Sabulaan, another arresting officer, despite notice.
During the May 16, 2013 hearing, in view of the missing testimonies and upon the invocation of the accused’s right to speedy trial, the respondent judge issued an Order provisionally dismissing the cases with the express consent of the accused and her counsel.

On June 5, 2013, PO2 Villas filed a Motion to Re-open the case, explaining that his prior failure to appear was due to the unfortunate death of his father-in-law.
PO2 Villas also noted that PO3 Rionaldo Sabulaan, having been transferred from his former assignment at the Cubao Police Station to the Batasan Police Station since November 2012, could not be reached for his scheduled testimony.
In response, on June 14, 2013, Judge Panganiban granted the motion to re-open the cases and set them for continuation of hearing.

Petitioner subsequently moved for reconsideration, arguing that the provisional dismissal amounted to an acquittal and that a witness without proper prosecutorial representation lacked the standing to file a motion to re-open the case.
On February 18, 2014, the trial court denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The Office of the Solicitor General, through then Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza, later filed a Comment supporting the view that there was no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the orders dated June 14, 2013 and February 18, 2014.

The petitioner raised several issues in her special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, including challenges to the propriety of the motion’s filing and the procedures followed in reopening the case.
Specifically, the issues touched on the qualifications of a witness to file such a motion, the proper procedural requirements in filing the motion (including notice to the opposing party), the authority of the respondent judge, and whether the provisional dismissal with the accused’s consent should be treated as an acquittal, thereby invoking double jeopardy concerns.

Whether witness PO2 Nelson Villas is entitled to file a Motion to Re-open a provisionally dismissed case without the participation of the Public Prosecutor.
Whether the Branch Clerk of Court had the authority to receive a Motion to Re-open that did not include a Notice of Hearing and a showing that the other party was properly served.
Whether the respondent judge had the authority to favorably act upon the said motion.
Whether the provisional dismissal of the criminal cases—dismissed with the express consent of the accused but based on failure to prosecute—amounts to an acquittal, such that its revival would constitute double jeopardy.
Whether the absence of the prosecution’s principal witness, PO2 Villas, in four consecutive hearings should be interpreted as a waiver under applicable jurisprudence (e.g., A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC).