Scribd
Upload
106 views1 page

Antonio Cabador vs. People of The Philippines G.R. No. 186001, October 2, 2009 Facts

1) Petitioner Antonio Cabador was accused of murder in 2000 and his trial dragged on for over 5 years with long gaps between intermittent hearings. 2) In 2006, Cabador filed a motion to dismiss the case citing violation of his right to a speedy trial due to the prosecution's repeated delays and failure to submit evidence. 3) The trial court erroneously treated Cabador's motion as a demurrer to evidence and ruled he waived his right to present a defense. The Supreme Court found Cabador clearly invoked his right to a speedy trial, not a demurrer to evidence, and granted his petition.

Uploaded by

Cecile Federizo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
106 views1 page

Antonio Cabador vs. People of The Philippines G.R. No. 186001, October 2, 2009 Facts

1) Petitioner Antonio Cabador was accused of murder in 2000 and his trial dragged on for over 5 years with long gaps between intermittent hearings. 2) In 2006, Cabador filed a motion to dismiss the case citing violation of his right to a speedy trial due to the prosecution's repeated delays and failure to submit evidence. 3) The trial court erroneously treated Cabador's motion as a demurrer to evidence and ruled he waived his right to present a defense. The Supreme Court found Cabador clearly invoked his right to a speedy trial, not a demurrer to evidence, and granted his petition.

Uploaded by

Cecile Federizo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

ANTONIO CABADOR vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 186001, October 2, 2009

Facts:
On June 23, 2000 the public prosecutor accused petitioner Antonio Cabador before the RTC of murder.
On February 13, 2006, after presenting only five witnesses over five years of intermittent trial, the RTC
required the prosecution to make a written or formal offer of its documentary evidence within 15 days
from notice. But the public prosecutor asked for three extensions of time. Still, the prosecution did not
make the required written offer. On August 1, 2006 petitioner Cabador filed a motion to dismiss the case
invoking his right to a speedy trial. On August 31, 2006, the RTC issued an Order treating petitioner
Cabador’s motion to dismiss as a demurrer to evidence. And, since he filed his motion without leave of
court, the RTC declared him to have waived his right to present evidence in his defense.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner Cabadors motion to dismiss before the trial court was in fact a demurrer to
evidence.

Held:
No. Supreme Court finds that petitioner Cabador filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of violation of
his right to speedy trial, not a demurrer to evidence. It can be said that petitioner Cabador took pains to
point out how trial in the case had painfully dragged on for years. The gaps between proceedings were
long, with hearings often postponed because of the prosecutors’ absence. This was further compounded,
Cabador said, by the prosecutions repeated motions for extension of time to file its formal offer and its
failure to file it within such time. Cabador then invoked his right to speedy trial. His so-called demurrer
did not touch on any particular testimony of even one witness. He cited no documentary exhibit. Thus,
the petitioner’s motion to dismiss cannot be treated as a demurrer to evidence. Petition granted.

You might also like