RAMON S. PAULIN, ANGELA F. PAULIN and JOSE BACHO, vs. HON. CELSO M. GIMENEZ (In his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC, Cebu City, Branch 5), HON. MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES (In his capacity as Judge of the MTC of Talisay, Branch IX, Cebu); CASTRO BELME, and The PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 103323
- Promulgated: 1993-01-21
- Ponente: Melo, J.
Doctrine
Reinstatement of a criminal case for further hearing does not violate double jeopardy where the trial court ousted itself by violating the prosecution's right to due process.
Under the Rule on Summary Procedure, affidavits constitute direct testimonies only if the affiants testify and affirm their contents; failure to testify renders such affidavits incompetent evidence.
Facts
Petitioners were defendants in Criminal Case No. 5204, which the municipal trial court dismissed after prematurely terminating the presentation of the prosecution's evidence.
The prosecution had submitted affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses before the trial court.
The Court of Appeals reinstated the criminal case for further hearing, prompting petitioners to invoke double jeopardy.
The High Court considered the applicability of the Rule on Summary Procedure, particularly whether motions to dismiss and petitions for certiorari were barred.
Issues
Whether the municipal trial court's dismissal of Criminal Case No. 5204 precludes a subsequent reconsideration or reversal of such dismissal because it would violate petitioners' right against double jeopardy.
Whether the Rule on Summary Procedure prohibits motions to dismiss and petitions for certiorari in the circumstances of this case.
Ruling
The dismissal by the trial court does not bar reinstatement: the Court held that reinstatement for further proceedings does not violate double jeopardy when the trial court ousted itself and violated the prosecution's right to due process.
Affidavits filed by the prosecution do not mean the prosecution has finished presenting evidence; under the Rule on Summary Procedure affiants must testify or their affidavits are not competent evidence.
The petition was dismissed and the decision of the Regional Trial Court dated 19 December 1991 was affirmed.
Keywords
G.R. No. 103323, Rule on Summary Procedure, double jeopardy, grave threats, oral defamation, acquittal, dismissal, waiver of double jeopardy, People v. Obsania, 23 SCRA 1249 [1968], Caes v. IAC, 179 SCRA 54 [1989], People v. Villalon, 192 SCRA 521 [1990], People v. Gines, 197 SCRA 481 [1991], People v. Salico, 84 Phil. 722 [1949], People v. Marapao, 85 Phil. 832 [1950], Gandicela v. Lutero, 88 Phil. 299 [1951], People v. Desalisa, 125 Phil. 27 [1966], People v. Aquino, 199 SCRA 610 [1991], certiorari, prohibition, defendant