DOUBLE JEOPARDY A. General Considerations Considerations 7. Abay, Sr. v. Garia, !"# SCRA ""$ %!&''( Direct assault )ey*ords: +ats : Petitioners were accused of the crime of direct assault. Trial commenced on July 26, 1976, with Ramiro ar!ue testifyin" on direct e#amination and $artly on cross%e#amination. The trial was transferred to &e$tem'er 1(, 1976. )ut a"ain the cross%e#amination was not terminated so the case was reset to July 1, 197 . *t the continuation of the trial on July 1, 1977, 'oth accused a$$eared withou withoutt their their counsel counsel.. The The trial trial fiscal, fiscal, *ssist *ssistant ant +iscal +iscal *n"el *n"el o'ato o'aton, n, was $resen $resent, t, 'ut the com$lainant com$lainant,, ar!ue ar!ue who was still to 'e cross%e#amined, cross%e#amined, failed to a$$ear des$ite due notice. The $ri-ate $rosecutor, *tty *tty.. enry Trocino, also failed to a$$ear. /hereu$on, /hereu$on, 0ity Jud"e +elino arcia -er'ally ordered, motu $ro$rio, the dismissal of the case. +iscal o'aton did not o'ect to the dismissal. )oth accused remained silent and later left the courtroom after the ud"e dictated the order of dismissal. *t a'out 1: o3cloc4 in the mornin" of the same day, *tty. Trocino, to"ether with with ar!ue ar!ue arri-ed arri-ed in court court and u$on learni learnin" n" that that 0rimi 0riminal nal 0ase 0ase 5o. 5o. 296 296 was ordered ordered dismissed, -er'ally mo-ed to ha-e the order of dismissal set aside. *tty. Trocino was allowed to $resent e-idence in su$$ort of the -er'al motion for reconsideration and to e#$lain the failure of ar!ue to a$$ear on time. n his written order of July 1, 1977, Jud"e arcia "ranted the -er'al motion for reconsideration and set aside the -er'al order of dismissal. e further ordered the resettin" of the case for hearin" on another date. Petitioners in-o4ed dou'le eo$ardy, claimin" that the -er'al order of dismissal, dismissal, e-en if $ro-isional $ro-isional,, was rendered rendered without the e#$ress e#$ress consent of the accused. ss-e: /85 the -er'al order of dismissal ac!uitted the $etitioners eld: 5o, the court held that the order was merely dictated in o$en court 'y the trial ud"e. &howin" that this -er'al order of dismissal was e-er reduced to writin" and duly si"ned 'y him. Thus, it did not yet attain the effect of a ud"ment of ac!uittal, so that it was still within the $owers of the ud"e to set it aside and enter another order, now in writin" and duly si"ned 'y him, reinstatin" the case. Dotrine: 8rder of dismissal must 'e written in the official lan"ua"e, $ersonally and directly $re$ared 'y the ud"e and a nd si"ned 'y him conforma'ly with the $ro-isions of Rule 12, section 2 of the 19 Rules on 0riminal Procedure B. Consented Dis/issals '. Peo0le v. Obsania, #1 SCRA !#2& %!&"'( +ats : The accused was char"ed with Ro''ery with Ra$e 'efore the ;unici$al 0ourt of )alun"ao, Pan"asinan. e $leaded not "uilty. The assistant $ro-incial fiscal filed an information for ra$e a"ainst the accused, em'odyin" the alle"ations of the a'o-e com$laint, with an additional a-erment that the offense was committed
n Peo$ Peo$le le -s. -s. &alic &alico, o, su$r su$ra, a, the the $ro$ro-in incia ciall fisca fiscall a$$e a$$eal aled ed from from the the orde orderr of the the trial trial cour courtt dismissin", u$on motion of the defendant made immediately after the $rosecution had rested its case, an indictment for homicide, on the "round that the $rosecution had failed to $ro-e that the crime was committed within the territorial urisdiction of the trial court, or, more s$ecifically, that the munici$ality of >ictorias in which the crime was alle"edly committed was com$romised within
the $ro-ince of 5e"ros 8ccidental. Reectin" the claim of the accused that the a$$eal $laced him in dou'le eo$ardy, this 0ourt held that the dismissal was erroneous 'ecause the e-idence on record showed that the crime was committed in the town of >ictorias and the trial ud"e should ha-e ta4en udicial notice that the said munici$ality was included within the $ro-ince of 5e"ros 8ccidental and therefore the offense char"ed was committed within the urisdiction of the court of first instance of the said $ro-ince. n rulin" that the a$$eal 'y the o-ernment did not $ut the accused in $eril of a second eo$ardy, this 0ourt stressed that with
n essence, where a criminal case is dismissed $ro-isionally not only with the e#$ress consent of the accused 'ut e-en u$on the ur"in" of his counsel there can 'e no dou'le eo$ardy under &ect. 9 Rule 11, if the indictment a"ainst him is re-i-ed 'y the fiscal. Dotrine: 1. the dismissal must 'e sou"ht or induced 'y the defendant $ersonally or throu"h his counsel? and second, such dismissal must not 'e on the merits and must not necessarily amount to an ac!uittal. ndu'ita'ly, the case at 'ar falls s!uarely within the $eri$hery of the said doctrines which ha-e 'een $reser-ed unim$aired in the cor$us of our uris$rudence.
2. n order that the accused may in-o4e dou'le eo$ardy, the followin" re!uisites must ha-e o'tained in the ori"inal $rosecution, aA -alid com$laint, 'A com$etent court, cA the defendant had $leaded to the char"e, dA defendant was ac!uitted or con-icted or the case a"ainst him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his e#$ress consent.
5ote: The doctrine of wai-er of dou'le eo$ardy was enunciated and formally la'elled as such for the first time in 19(9 in Peo$le -s. &alico. &. On3 v. Peo0le, 12# SCRA 17# %#444( )ey*ords: $a$er 'a"%ma4in" machine +ats : Eeny *lfonso $urchased a $a$er 'a"%ma4in" machine from the &olid 0ement 0or$oration. /hen she went to the cor$oration3s *nti$olo $lant, howe-er, no machine could 'e "i-en to her, it a$$earin" that the machine sold had 'een earlier mort"a"ed to a creditor, who, unfortunately, refused to release the mort"a"e. erein $etitioners offered to return the money $aid 'y ;rs. *lfonso 'ut she refused and instead filed a criminal com$laint with the 0ity Prosecutor of ;a4ati. The 0ity Prosecutor dismissed the com$laint on the "round that lia'ility, if any, would 'e ci-il and not criminal in nature. This dismissal was, howe-er, re-ersed 'y the De$artment of Justice. *n nformation for estafa and other deceit 'ased on the Re-ised Penal 0ode was filed with the ;eT0 of ;a4ati 0ity. *fter $re%trial, the $rosecution $resented as its sole witness com$lainant Eeny *lfonso. The $rosecution then formally offered its documentary e-idence and rested its case. The admissi'ility of these documents was !uestioned 'y $etitioners. Petitioners filed a motion for lea-e to file demurrer to e-idence 'ut the ;eT0 denied the $etitioner. RT0 re-ersed the ;eT0 decision and and "ranted the demurrer to e-idence 'ut the 0* re-ersed the decision of RT0 and reinstated the decision of ;eT0. The a$$ellate court held that $etitioners could not a-ail of their constitutional ri"ht a"ainst dou'le eo$ardy, alle"edly 'ecause the re"ional trial court3s re-ersal of the ;eT0 denial of their demurrer to e-idence is a
!4. Peo0le v. Delaro, !74 SCRA !2# %!&'&( )ey*ords: *4lan +ats : The accused was char"ed for sli"ht $hysical inuries throu"h rec4less im$rudence due to traffic accident. H$on the arrai"nment of the accused in 0riminal 0ase 5o. 12%5 'efore the inferior court on 8cto'er 7, 191, he entered a $lea of not "uilty. The case was first set for hearin" on January 19, 19. )oth the offended $arty and the $rosecutin" fiscal, howe-er, failed to a$$ear at the scheduled hearin" des$ite due notice. 0ounsel for the accused thus -er'ally mo-ed for the dismissal of the case for lac4 of interest on the $art of the $rosecution. This motion was "ranted. * motion for reconsideration of the said order was filed 'y the fiscal on January 27, 19. The motion for reconsideration was "ranted in an order dated ;ay 27, 19. The case was, therefore, set for trial. owe-er, u$on a motion for reconsideration filed 'y the accused, the inferior court issued another order dated *u"ust , 19, dismissin" the case anew.
n the meanwhile, considerin" that the said case had 'een dismissed on January 19, 19, counsel for the accused filed a motion to dismiss 0riminal 0ase 5o. 1(21 on the "round that the dismissal of the $rior case is a 'ar to the $rosecution of the latter. n an order dated ;arch 2, 19, the trial
court dismissed 0riminal 0ase 5o. 1(21 on the "round of dou'le eo$ardy. * motion for reconsideration was filed 'y the $rosecution 'ut this was denied on ;ay 11, 19. t is the contention of $etitioner that the dismissal of the case was at the instance and with the consent of the accused and his counsel which constitutes a wai-er of his constitutional ri"ht a"ainst dou'le eo$ardy and, therefore, such dismissal will not 'ar another $rosecution. 8n the other hand, $ri-ate res$ondent, citin" se-eral cases, maintains that althou"h the dismissal was at the instance and with the consent of the accused, it was in reality an ac!uittal 'y reason of the $rosecution3s failure to $ro-e his "uilt, thus 'arrin" another $rosecution for the same offense. ss-e: /85 there is dou'le eo$ardy eld: 5o, the accused was duly notified that the case was set for hearin" on January 19, 19. 8n said date of hearin" neither the com$lainant nor the fiscal a$$eared des$ite due notice. This was the first date of hearin" after arrai"nment. The court a !uo should not ha-e dismissed the case and should ha-e instead reset the case to another date to "i-e the $rosecution another day in court. the com$lainin" witness and the $rosecutor failed to a$$ear only in the first hearin". I-en if the court did not dismiss the case 'ut merely $ost$oned the hearin" to another date, there would not ha-e 'een a denial of the ri"ht of the accused to a s$eedy trial. The ri"ht of the accused to ha-e a s$eedy trial is -iolated when unustified $ost$onements of the trial are as4ed for and secured, or when, without "ood cause or ustifia'le moti-e, a lon" $eriod of time is allowed to ela$se without his case 'ein" tried. 5one of said situations e#ists in the $resent case. &urely, it cannot 'e said that there was a -iolation of the constitutional ri"ht of the accused to a s$eedy trial. *s we o'ser-ed, the more $rudent ste$ that the court a !uo should ha-e ta4en was to $ost$one the hearin" to "i-e the $rosecution another o$$ortunity to $resent its case. The court a !uo had in fact reconsidered its order of dismissal of 0riminal 0ase 5o. 12%5 and reset it for trial. lt should ha-e maintained said action instead of "rantin" the motion for reconsideration of the accused. The dismissal of the case 'y the trial court on the "round that the accused is entitled to a s$eedy trial is unwarranted under the circumstances o'tainin" in this case. Dotrine: Dou'le eo$ardy will a$$ly e-en if the dismissal is made with the e#$ress consent of the accused, or u$on his own motion, only if it is $redicated on either of two "rounds, i.e., insufficiency of the e-idence or denial of the ri"ht to a s$eedy trial. n 'oth cases, the dismissal will ha-e the effect of an ac!uittal. &ince the dismissal in this case does not fall under either of these two instances and it was made with the e#$ress consent of the accused, it would not there'y 'e a 'ar to another $rosecution for the same offense. !!. Al/ario v. Co-rt o5 A00eals, 1$$ SCRA ! %#44!( )ey*ords: +ats : Petitioner is one of the accused in 0riminal 0ase 5o. 91%6761, for estafa thru falsification of $u'lic document, and 0riminal 0ase 5o. 91%6762, for estafa, with res$ondent R0)0 as the offended $arty in 'oth cases. The informations were filed on 8cto'er 22, 1992. *fter $etitioners arrai"nment on ;arch 1, 1992, $re%trial was held, which was terminated on 8cto'er 21, 199(. Thereafter, the cases were scheduled for continuous trial in Decem'er 199(, and in January and +e'ruary 199, 'ut the hearin"s were cancelled 'ecause the Presidin" Jud"e of the court was ele-ated to this 0ourt and no trial ud"e was immediately a$$ointedCdetailed thereto.The hearin" set for June 21, 199, was $ost$oned for lac4 of $roof of notice to all the accused and their counsel. The hearin" on July 17, 199, u$on re!uest of $ri-ate $rosecutor, and without o'ection on the $art of $etitioners counsel, $ost$oned to July 2(, 199. owe-er, for lac4 of $roof of ser-ice of notice u$on $etitioners three co%accused, the hearin" set for July 2(, 199, was li4ewise cancelled and the
cases were reset for trial on &e$tem'er and 2, 199. 8n &e$tem'er , 199, $ri-ate com$lainant failed to a$$ear des$ite due notice. ence, u$on motion of $etitioners counsel, res$ondent court dismissed the case of the $etitioner. H$on motion of the $ri-ate $rosecutor and des$ite the o$$osition of $etitioner, res$ondent court held that The dismissal in the 8rder dated &e$tem'er , 199, did not result in the ac!uittal of the accused since the ri"ht of the accused to s$eedy trial has not 'een -iolated, and its dismissal ha-in" 'een made u$on the motion of the accused there is no dou'le eo$ardy. Petitioner sou"ht a reconsideration of the a'o-e order. ss-e: /85 there is dou'le eo$ardy eld: 5o, the court held that the $etitioners ri"ht to s$eedy trial was not trans"ressed, this e#ce$tion to the fifth element of dou'le eo$ardy that the defendant was ac!uitted or con-icted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the e#$ress consent of the accused was not met. The trial courts initial order of dismissal was u$on motion of $etitioners counsel, hence made with the e#$ress consent of $etitioner. That 'ein" the case, des$ite the reconsideration of said order, dou'le eo$ardy did not attach. Dotrine: C. A6-ittal, otions 5or Reonsideration and A00eals !#. B-sta/ante v. aeren, 2' SCRA !$$ %!&7#( )ey*ords: re%o$enin" +ats : The $etitioner was accused of murder. Petitioner entered a $lea of "uilty, and after $ro-in" the $ri-ile"ed miti"atin" circumstance of incom$lete self%defense and three ordinary miti"atin" circumstances, the trial was had and ud"ment $romul"ated on ;arch 17, 1972 'y now res$ondent Jud"e that 'ustamante is "uilty of the crime of murder.
8n the same day, the ud"ment a'o-e%!uoted was $romul"ated to the $etitioner, who thereu$on made an e#$ress wai-er of his ri"ht to a$$eal. Pro-incial +iscal of a"una filed a motion for ;odification of Penalty and u$on recei$t of said motion, counsel for the $etitioner on the same day filed a ;otion for /ithdrawal of Plea of uilty and /ai-er of 0ommitment. 8n Decem'er 21, 197, the on. Jud"e Jor"e 0o!uia issued the followin" order: <&u'mitted for resolution is the motion for modification of $enalty filed 'y the *ssistant Pro-incial +iscal. 8r the other hand accused throu"h counsel in -iew of the motion of the $rosecution filed a motion for withdrawal of $lea of "uilty and wai-er of commitment. )ut in -iew of the motion of accused, the motion of the $rosecution has 'ecome moot and academic and the motion filed 'y the accused is here'y "ranted and the ud"ment in this case dated Decem'er 1(, 197 is here'y set aside and the case shall 'e tried on the merit on January 1, 197. &u'se!uently, Jud"e 0o!uia was transferred to ;anila, and the case a"ainst $etitioner was reassi"ned to the sala $resided o-er 'y the onora'le ;a#imo ;aceren, 'efore whom $etitioner was re%arrai"ned on +e'ruary 1, 1971? and after $etitioner entered a $lea of not "uilty, said ud"e held a new hearin" of the case on the merits and thereafter, Jud"e ;aceren rendered a new ud"ment a"ainst $etitioner on +e'ruary 2, 1972 that the $etitioner is "uilty of the crime of homicide. Petitioner filed a ;otion for Reconsideration. in which motion $etitioner !uestioned the urisdiction of the trial court to try his case anew after he had fully ser-ed the ud"ment rendered 'y Jud"e 0o!uia a"ainst him on Decem'er 1(, 197. Petitioner, in said motion, ar"ued that the ud"ment of Decem'er 1(, 197 a"ainst him had already 'ecome final when he started ser-in" his sentence thereunder and that therefore, the 0ourt thereafter lost urisdiction o-er his case? and that no amount of wai-er or consent on his $art could 'estow on said court urisdiction that it had already lost.
ss-e: /85 the reo$enin" the case is -alid eld: Ges, Petitioner is entitled to the relief $rayed for. /ith the ud"ment of con-iction not only $romul"ated 'ut actually carried out with $etitioner ha-in" started to ser-e his sentence, no such order re%o$enin" the case should ha-e 'een issued 'y Jud"e 0o!uia. That was not in accordance with the controllin" doctrine on the constitutional ri"ht a"ainst 'ein" twice $ut in eo$ardy. t is true that $etitioner had in fact contri'uted to 'rin"in" a'out such udicial de-iation from the correct norm. That did not forfeit thou"h, his ri"ht to a remedy to which he is entitled. There should not ha-e 'een any a$$ro-al of such a mo-e. The 0onstitution does not countenance such a ste$. The ud"ment was rendered. 8n the -ery same day, he was committed to ail and actually started ser-in" sentence. There was no -alid ustification then for the order of Jud"e 0o!uia settin" aside a decision already in the $rocess of e#ecution. That amounted to a defiance of a constitutional command Dotrine: 5o re%o$enin" of a case may 'e ordered of a criminal case after accused has started ser-in" his sentence? a ud"ment in a criminal case 'ecomes final after the la$se of the $eriod for $erfectin" an a$$eal or when the sentence has 'een $artially or totally satisfied or ser-ed or the defendant ha wai-ed in writin" his a$$eal? withdrawal of $lea of "uilty does not constitute wai-er of defense of dou'le eo$ardy timely in-o4ed.
* ud"ment in a criminal case 'ecomes final after the la$se of the $eriod for $erfection a$$eal, or when the sentence has 'een $artially or totally satisfied or ser-ed, or the defendant has e#$ressly wai-ed in writin" his ri"ht to a$$eal. * final and e#ecutory ud"ment is not a$$eala'le and the a$$ellate court has no urisdiction to re-iew, re-erse, or modify it.
