Case Digest (G.R. No. 82346-47)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 82346-47)
Facts:
Victoriano Ada v. Honorable Judge Marciano T. Virola and Calapan Development Company, G.R. No. 82346-47, April 17, 1989, Supreme Court Third Division, Fernan, C.J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Victoriano Ada was first prosecuted in Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch XXXIX, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, in Criminal Cases Nos. 2056 and 2057 for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law) arising from the issuance of three checks that were dishonored. After the prosecution had rested its case in those BP 22 cases and before the defense presented evidence, petitioner was charged anew in the same RTC in Criminal Cases Nos. C-2434 and C-2435 for estafa under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, based on the same act (the three bouncing checks).
Petitioner objected to the second set of informations as violative of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy but the trial judge, Hon. Marciano T. Virola, proceeded to arraign petitioner in the estafa cases; following a plea of not guilty, the prosecution was permitted to present evidence, largely by adopting evidence previously presented in the BP 22 prosecutions. After the prosecution rested in the estafa cases, petitioner moved to dismiss on the ground that the second prosecutions constituted double jeopardy under Section 21, Article III of the 1987 Constitution; the trial court denied the motion in an Order dated September 2, 1987, and denied reconsideration.
Petitioner then filed this petition in the Supreme Court seeking certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to annul and set aside the trial court's orders denying dismissal of Criminal Cases Nos. C-2434 and C-2435, to prohibit further proceedings, and to order dismissal of those cases; he also sought interim injunctive relief. The petition challenged the subsequent estafa prosecutions as barred by the constitutional guarantee against being twice put in jeopardy for the same act which had previously been prosecuted under BP 22.
Issues:
- Was there a prior valid jeopardy that attached and terminated in the BP 22 prosecutions before the estafa prosecutions were instituted?
- Do the estafa charges under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and the BP 22 prosecutions constitute the "same offense" for purposes of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy (Art. III, Sec. 21, 1987 Constitution)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)