LEOPOLDO SALCEDO V. HON. JUDGE FILEMON H. MENDOZA & PEOPLE G.R. No. L-49375, Fe!"#!$ %, '979 MA(ASIAR, J.: FAC)S*
Leopoldo Salcedo was charged with reckless imprudence before the CFI of Oriental Mindoro, Branch I. fter his arraignment, the trial was scheduled on !an. "#, $%&' but it was postponed on Feb. "", $%&' upon motion of the prosecution. On Feb. "", the trial was again postponed due to the absence of the Salcedo. (he trial was again was reset on March "#, $%&' but again, no trial proceeded because no prosecuting fiscal was present. (his time, the accused, through tt). tt). *dgardo ceron, in+oking the right of the accused to speed) trial, mo+ed for the dismissal of the case against Salcedo which was then granted b ) the respondent !udge. On the same da), the prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. (he prosecution filed a second motion for reconsideration and the udge set the hearing on pril "-, $%&'. fter fter trial, the trial udge issued an order directing both parties to submit their respecti+e pleadings within # da)s. Both parties failed to compl) with such order. e+ertheless, !udge Mendo/a issued an order setting aside its pre+ious order dismissing the criminal case against Salcedo. 0ence, Salcedo appealed before the SC sa)ing that the dismissal of the case against him is considered as an ac1uittal and thus the re+i+al of the case would place him in double eopard). (his (his contention was supported b) the OS2.
ISSUE* +HE)HER +HE )HER OR NO) )HE )HERE RE +AS A VIOLA VIOLA)U )UON ON OF SALCEDO SALCEDOS S CONS)I CONS)I)U)I )U)IONA ONAL L RIGH) RIGH) AGAINS) DOULE JEOPARD RULING*
In the present case, the respondent !udge dismissed the case, upon the motion of the petitioner in+oking his constitutional right to speed) trial, because the prosecution failed to appear on the da) of the trial on March "', $%&' after it had pre+iousl) been postponed twice, the first on !anuar) "3, $%&' and the second on Februar) "", $%&'. (he effect of such dismissal is at once clear Following the established urisprudence, a dismiss predicated on the right of the accused to speed) trial upon his own motion or e4press consent, amounts to an ac1uittal which will bar another prosecution of the accused for the same offense (his is an e4ception to the rule that a dismissal upon the motion or with the e4press consent of the accused win not be a bar to the subse1uent prosecution of the accused for the same offense as pro+ided for in Section %, 5ule $$6 of the 5ules of Court. (he moment the dismissal of a
criminal case is predicated on the right of the accused to speed) trial e+en if it is upon his own motion or e4press consent, such dismissal is e1ui+alent to ac1uittal nd an) attempt to prosecute the accused for the same offense will +iolate the constitutional prohibition that 7no person shall be twice put in eopard) of punishment for the same offense. (0* 8*(I(IO IS 25(*9 B*C:S* (0* 5*;I;L OF (0* CS* 2IS( 0IM 8LC*9 0IM I 9O:BL* !*O859<.
