Que v. Cosico
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An information for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents involving P2,120,511.24 was filed on November 29, 1985. The case went through several postponements and pre-trial proceedings. On November 10, 1986, during a hearing where the prosecution was ready to present its principal witness, defense counsel moved for the inhibition of the presiding judge. The judge, instead of ruling on the motion, asked for comments. The prosecution insisted on a ruling on the inhibition motion. Consequently, the presiding judge dismissed the case on oral motion of the defense counsel invoking the constitutional right to speedy trial, and cancelled the bail bonds. Procedural History: The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration, which was granted by the successor judge, Judge Rodrigo Cosico, who ordered the reopening of the case. The defense's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals, in G.R. No. 83114, set aside Judge Cosico's order, ruling that the reinstatement amounted to double jeopardy. The People of the Philippines appealed this decision. In G.R. No. 81861, the accused Bernabe Que and Amelia Que filed a petition for certiorari seeking to nullify Judge Cosico's orders. The Petition: The consolidated petitions raise the common issue of whether the reinstatement of the criminal case placed the accused in double jeopardy.
Issue(s)
Whether the reinstatement of Criminal Case No. C-2152 places the accused in double jeopardy, considering the dismissal of the case upon the accused's motion invoking the right to speedy trial. Whether the oral motion for inhibition was valid, and its impact on the subsequent proceedings.
Ruling
The Court ruled that the reinstatement of Criminal Case No. C-2152 does not constitute double jeopardy. The petition in G.R. No. 81861 was dismissed for lack of merit, and the petition in G.R. No. 83114 was granted, affirming the orders of Judge Cosico and setting aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the petition docketed as G.R. No. 81861 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The petition docketed as G. R. No. 83114 is GRANTED and the questioned orders of Judge Cosico dated May 22, 1987 and November 27, 1978 are AFFIRMED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 22, 1988 is SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of double jeopardy and the dismissal of the case: The Court held that no double jeopardy attached because the dismissal of the case was upon the express motion and with the consent of the accused. The requisites for legal jeopardy to attach include a valid complaint, a competent court, the accused having pleaded to the charge, and conviction, acquittal, or dismissal without the accused's express consent. In this case, the fourth requisite was absent as the dismissal was initiated by the defense invoking their constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Court emphasized that when an accused expressly consents to or moves for the dismissal of the case, it constitutes a waiver of their right not to be prosecuted again for the same offense, citing Gandicela v. Lutero. The insistence of the prosecution on a ruling on the motion for inhibition before presenting evidence was not considered dilatory, especially in light of the subsequent precipitate dismissal by the former judge, which suggested bias. The Court noted that the defense counsel also sought postponements, implying they did not have clean hands in invoking speedy trial. Therefore, the dismissal was not a bar to further prosecution. On the validity of the oral motion for inhibition: The Court found no merit in the contention that the oral motion for inhibition was in violation of Rule 137, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. It clarified that motions made in the course of a hearing or trial are exceptions to the rule that all motions must be in writing, as provided in Rule 15, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. The Court also noted that a written motion for inhibition was indeed filed, although it was belatedly withdrawn. This procedural aspect did not alter the substantive finding regarding double jeopardy.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of a criminal case upon the express motion of the accused invoking their constitutional right to a speedy trial does not constitute double jeopardy, as the dismissal was with the accused's consent and constitutes a waiver of their right not to be prosecuted again for the same offense.