Rene Cabarles v Hon.
Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda and People
(Quisumbing, 2007)
Topic: Remedies from a Judgment of Conviction: Reopening
SUMMARY: Petitioner seeks to annul the Order issued by respondent entitled People
v Rene Cabarles for murder filed with RTC of Las Pinas. The Order cancelled the
scheduled promulgation of judgment and reopend the case for reception of evidence
from 2 prosecution witnesses who were not presented during trial. Because of the
mix-ups in the dates indicated in the subpoenas and the dates of the actual hearings,
witnesses did not show up. Court said that Judge failed to comply with the 3rd
requirement under Sec 24 of Rule 119 and that the reopening of the case violated
petitioner’s constitutional right to due process and the speedy disposition of cases.
FACTS
 On June 18, 1999, Cabarles was charged with murder for stabbing
Antonio Callosa with a fan knife. He pleaded not guilty. Prosecution
had subpoenas issued to its witnesses to testify on the contents of
the death certificate of Antonio Callosa.
 Prosecution was unable to present evidence on the first 4 hearing
dates. Trial on merits began on the last of the 5 days. The 2nd
prosecution witnesses presented in Court during June 20, 2001.
During said hearing, prosecution said it would offer its evidence and
rest its case should the People fail to present a witness at the next
scheduled hearing. On July 27, no prosecution witness was
presented. 4 subpoenas were issued to one of the witnesses
(Pedrosa). The 1st was received by her, the 2nd by her hubby and the
last 2 had no proofs of service. 3 subpoenas issued to Dr. Salen
required attendance on certain dates and were all returned with the
notation “addressee moved”. There was no evidence showing that
they received subpoenas requiring them to go on July 27.
 A day before the scheduled promulgation of judgment,
respondent issued an Order reopening the case. Prosecution
might not be given its day in court resulting in a miscarriage of
justice. There was a mix-up in the dates of the subpoenas and the
hearing dates of when the case was actually heard.
 Cabarles filed an MR which was denied and the case was set for
hearing to hear the testimonies of Pedrosa and Dr. Salen. The
subpoena for the latter failed since the doctor was no longer
assigned to the SPD Crime Laboratory. Pedrosa however took the
witness stand.
 Maceda then deferred the promulgation of judgment and ordered
the case archived pending the SC case.
ISSUE
WON Respondent abused his discretion when he issued the questioned
order despite the absence of a final judgment of conviction - YES
A motion to reopen a case to receive further proofs was a recognized
procedural recourse, driving validity and acceptance from long, established
usage.
 Following requirements to reopen a case (Sec 24 + existing
jurisprudence): 1) the reopening must be before the finality of a
judgment of conviction; 2) the order is issued by the judge on his
own initiative or upon motion; 3) the order is issued only after a
hearing is conducted; 4) the order intends to prevent a miscarriage of
justice; and 5) the presentation of additional and/or further evidence
should be terminated within 30 days from the issuance of an order.
 A motion to reopen may thus properly be presented only after either
or both parties had formally offered and closed their evidence, but
before judgment is rendered and even after promulgation but before
finality of judgment and the only controlling guideline governing a
motion to reopen is the paramount interest of justice. This remedy
was meant to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
 Although PAO cross-examined Pedrosa and participated in
proceedings (thus meaning that prosecution’s presentation of
evidence is closed), Cabarles’ objection to the Order has not been
waived.
WON petitioner’s right to due process and speedy disposition of his case was
violated – YES
Reopening a case for reception of further evidence is largely a matter of
discretion on the trial court judge however this action must not be done
whimsically, capriciously, and/or unreasonably. The prosecution was
given ample opportunity to present all its witnesses but failed to do so.
 Judge Maceda issued the questioned order without complying with
the 3rd requirement of Sec 24 that there be a hearing conducted
before the order to reopen is issued then the assailed order must be
annulled and set aside for having been issued contrary to law and
with GAOD.
 On Cabarles’ right to a speedy disposition of his case: Nowhere is
this guaranty more significant and meaningful than in criminal cases
where not only the fortune but the life and liberty of the accused as
well, are at stake.
o He has been detained since June 1999. 7 years.
 PETITION GRANTED. ORDER must be ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE