PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ACELO VERRA

G.R. No. 134732, May 29, 2002

FACTS:

On November 14, 1988, respondent Acelo Verra was charged with the crime of murder for killing Elias Cortezo. A warrant of arrest was issued by the Regional Trial Court against him on November 21, 1988 and only until May 24, 1996 when he voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court accompanied by his counsel. Immediately, an arraignment proceeded entering a plea of "Not Guilty."

On the same day, the prosecution called to the witness stand the wife of the victim, private complainant Damiana Cortezo who testified that: (1) she has executed an affidavit of desistance; (2) she is no longer interested in prosecuting the case; and (3) other witnesses of the shooting incident have turned hostile and have similarly lost concern in pursuing the same. Thereafter, the prosecution, joined by the counsel for the accused, moved for the dismissal of the case which was granted by the court.

After learning of the dismissal, two other witnesses asserted that Damiana and the accused misled the trial court and deprived the plaintiff, People of the Philippines, its day in court and that the Order dismissing the case should be voided.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the dismissal of the case against petitioner has attained finality, and that its revival requires the filing of a new case or information.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the revival of the case is violative of the respondent’s constitutional right against double jeopardy.

RULING:

Yes.

Under Article III, Section 21 of the Constitution, "No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act." In a long line of decisions, the court enumerated the following requisites for double jeopardy to attach: (1) upon a valid indictment; (2) before a competent court; (3) after arraignment; (4) when a valid plea has been entered; and (5) when the defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. There are however two occasions when double jeopardy will attach even if the motion to dismiss the case is made by the accused himself. The first is when the ground is insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution, and the second is when the proceedings have been unreasonably prolonged in violation of the right to a speedy trial.

In the case at bar, all the above-cited requisites were present. First, there was a valid information, sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction, duly signed by an  Assistant Provincial Fiscal. Second, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 clearly had jurisdiction to hear and try the murder charge against the respondent. Third, he was arraigned in open court with the assistance of a counsel de officio. Fourth, during the arraignment, he entered a plea of not guilty. Finally, there was a valid termination of this case on the basis of the trial judge's Order to dismiss the case. While it is true that the respondent joined the prosecution in praying for its dismissal, double jeopardy will still attach since the basis for the ruling was the insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution.

Therefore, to protect respondent’s constitutional right against double jeopardy, the case should not be revived.