Case
Digest by
Ma. Riffy
Cerezo Balingit
JD II
G.R.
No. 183681, July 27, 2015
SPO2 ROLANDO JAMACA, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
It is settled that the dismissal
of a case during its preliminary investigation does not constitute double
jeopardy since a preliminary investigation is not part of the trial and is not
the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence but
only such as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been
committed and accused is probably guilty thereof. For this reason, it cannot be
considered equivalent to a judicial pronouncement of acquittal.
FACTS:
Private complainant Atty.
Emilie Bangot filed a complaint about Grave Threats against the petitioner with
the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, docketed as
OMB-MIL-CRIM-97-0754. She likewise filed a similar complaint before the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Cagayan de Oro City. In a Resolution dated January
26, 1998, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military dismissed the
complaint on the ground that the accusation against the petitioner was
unfounded, based solely on the statement of one Rustom Roxas that there were no
threatening words uttered by petitioner. A petition for certiorari was filed
with this Court to assail said ruling of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for
the Military, but the same was dismissed in a Resolution dated July 29, 1998.
On the other hand, the private complainant’s complaint before the Office of the
City Prosecutor prospered and led to the filing of Information against the
petitioner. He was charged with grave threats defined and penalized under
paragraph 1 of Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code.
ISSUE: Whether
or not petitioner's indictment pursuant to the findings of the Office of the
City Prosecutor, and his eventual conviction for the crime of grave threats,
has placed him in double jeopardy?
RULING:
No, the Court has categorically
ruled that since the preliminary investigation stage is not part of the trial,
the dismissal of a case during preliminary investigation would not put the
accused in danger of double jeopardy in the event of a re-investigation or the
filing of a similar case. An investigating body is not bound by the findings or
resolution of another such office, tribunal or agency which may have had before
it a different or incomplete set of evidence than what had been presented
during the previous investigation. It should be borne in mind that for a claim
of double jeopardy to prosper, petitioner has to prove that a first jeopardy
has attached prior to the second. As stated in Braza v. Sandiganbayan,8
"[t]he first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court;
( c ) after arraignment;
(d) when a valid plea has
been entered;and (
e) when the accused was acquitted or convicted, or the case was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent. In this case, the the complaint before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military was
dismissed as early as the preliminary investigation stage, thus, there was as
yet, no indictment to speak of. No complaint or Information has been brought
before a competent court. Hence, none of the aforementioned events has
transpired for the first jeopardy to have attached.
The prosecution evidence
established beyond any reasonable doubt that the petitioner is indeed guilty of
grave threats.
No comments:
Post a Comment