CASE DIGEST BY: MARY CHOLEENE M. BAUTISTA; GUIMMAYEN v. HON. CACDAC, JR.

 Case digest: Mary Choleene M. Bautista

G.R. No. L-45650        March 29, 1982

CRESENCIO ANDRES and PROCESO GUIMMAYEN, Petitioner, v. HON. BONIFACIO A. CACDAC, JR., in his capacity as Judge-Designate of the Circuit Criminal Court, First Judicial District, Tuguegarao, Cagayan and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by Atty. RUFO A. BACULI, in his capacity as District State Prosecutor in the Circuit Criminal Court, Respondents.

FACTS:

    Sometime on September 1963, accused Cresencio Andres, Proceso Guimmayen and Ladislao Tacipit, armed with bolos and ice-pick, conspiring together and helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation and with abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack, stab and hack one Teofilo Ramos inflicting upon him several wounds in his body, which cased his death.  And so, an information was filed charging the accused with the crime of murder.

    Sometime on February 1967, the accused were arraigned and an entered a plea of "Not Guilty".  Thereafter, the case was set for trial however, multiple postponement were filed continuously which cause for the case to be provisionally dismissed per order of the court on March 6, 1969.

    After 7 years after the provisional dismissal of the case, a new information charging anew Andres, Guimmayen, and Tacipit for the murder of Teofilo Ramos was filed.  Pleading double jeopardy, herein petitioners, Andres and Guimmayen moved to quash the information, however, the trial court denied the same for lack of factual and legal basis.

ISSUE:

    Whether or not there is  abuse of discretion in the actuation of the respondent Judge..

RULING:

    No.

    For legal jeopardy to exist, there should be:

    a. a valid complaint or information;

    b. before a court of competent jurisdiction; and

    c. the defendant had been arraigned and had pleaded to the complaint or information.

    When these three conditions are present, the acquittal or conviction of the defendant or the dismissal or termination of the case without his express consent constitutes res adjudicata, and is a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included therein.

    It should be noted that in the order issued in the earlier case, the accused and their counsel not only asked for, but also consented to , the provisional dismissal of the case.  Their act operates as a waiver of their defense of double jeopardy in the second prosecution for the same offense.  

When a criminal case is dismissed upon the application and express consent of the accused and his counsel, the dismissal is not a bar to another prosecution for the same offense because his action in having the case dismissed constitutes a waiver of his constitutional prerogative against double jeopardy as he thereby prevent the court from proceeding to the trial on the merits and rendering judgment of conviction against him.

    There is likewise, no merit in the contention that the petitioners were denied their right to a speedy trial.  In this case, there was a waiver or abandonment of the right to a speedy trial in the first case when the herein petitioner sought and obtain several postponements of the trial.