CEREZO VS.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

JOSEPH CEREZO
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 185230

June 1, 2011
Pontante: NACHURA, J

Nature of the Case:

Petition for Review of Certiorari

BRIEF:
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul the July 11,
2008 Decision and November 4, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
99088, which reversed and set aside the October 24, 2006 and the February 26, 2007 Orders of the
Regional Trial Court(RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 92.

FACTS:

Petitioner Joseph Cerezo filed a complaint for liber against Juliet Yaneza, Pablo Abunda, Jr. and
Vicente Afulugencia and Oscar Mapalo. The Quezon City Prosecutors Office (OP-QC) finding probable
cause filed corresponding Information before the RTC. Respondents filed a Motion for
Reconsideration and/or Motion to Re-evaluate Prosecutions Evidence before the OP-QC which later
on issued a resolution reversing its decision and thus a Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw Information
was filed before the RTC. However, respondents were already arraigned to which they all entered a
not guilty plea. The RTC ordered the criminal case dismissed stating that the Court finds merit in the
motion of the Public Prosecutor to dismiss the case. Aggrieved, Petitioner moved for the
reconsideration of the Order stating that the OP-QC resolution dismissing the case did not attain
finality since a Petition for Review was filed before the Department of Justice. With this information
the RTC deferred the action on the said motion waiting for the decision of the DOJ.

The Secretary of Justice reversed the resolution of the OP-QC and directed to re-file the information
for libel.

With the resolution by the DOJ the RTC granted the petitions motion for reconsideration stating that
the order of dismissal it issued did not yet attained finality as there was a pending Motion for
Reconsideration filed in the DOJ.

The motion for reconsideration of the respondents were denied by the RTC thus a Petition for
Certiorari was filed arguing that the RTC Orders violated their constitutional right against double
jeopardy.

The Court of Appeals found the RTC to have gravely abused its discretion in ordering the
reinstatement of the case. All of the elements of double jeopardy exist, namely:
a. Valid information sufficient in form and substance.
 b. The information was filed before a court of competent jurisdiction
c. Termination of the case was not expressly consented to by respondents.

The Court of Appeals also pointed out that the DOJ Secretary has no jurisdiction over the case as
mandated in the DOJ Department Order No. 223 that no appeal shall be entertained if the accused
has already been arraigned or, if the arraignment took place during the pendency of the appeal.

ISSUE OF THE CASE:

Whether there was a valid termination of the case so as to usher in the impregnable wall of double
jeopardy.

ACTION of the COURT:

RTC : Dismissed the criminal case following the withdrawal of Information by the OP- QC
DOJ : Set aside the decision of the City Prosecutor directing to re-file the information
RTC : Reversed its decision following the DOJ Resolution
CA : Annulled the RTC Orders ruling that the elements of double jeopardy exist.
SC : Annulled and Set Aside the Orders of the RTC. The case is REMANDED to the QC
RTC for evaluation on whether probable cause exists to hold respondents for trial

COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS:

Once a case is filed with the court, any disposition of it rests on the sound discretion of the court. In
thus resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw an Information, the trial court should not
rely solely and merely on the findings of the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice. It is the
courts bounden duty to assess independently the merits of the motion, and this assessment must be
embodied in a written order disposing of the motion. In this case the RTC both relied on the
recommendation of the Public Prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice in rending the decision without
any independent evaluation or assessment of the merits of the case, thus the Orders were stained
with grave abuse of discretion and violated the complainants right to due process. They were void,
had no legal standing, and produced no effect whatsoever.

Double jeopardy did not set in. Double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are present: (1)
a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and
(3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. A 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 has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent. Since the motion to dismiss was committed with
grave abuse of discretion then respondents were not acquitted nor was there a valid and legal
dismissal or termination of the case.

SUPREME COURT RULING:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE, and the assailed July 11, 2008 Decision
and the November 4, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 99088, and the
October 24, 2006 and the February 26, 2007 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 92, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Quezon City
RTC, Branch 92, for evaluation on whether probable cause exists to hold respondents for trial.