Case Digest (G.R. No. 173421)
Facts:
Oscar Z. Benares, G.R. No. 173421, December 14, 2006, the Supreme Court En Banc, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.This case arises from a criminal complaint for estafa filed by Josephine Lim (respondent) against Oscar Benares (petitioner) based on two contracts of sale executed in 1976. Respondent alleged she had fully paid amortizations and received a deed of absolute sale, but petitioner thereafter mortgaged the same parcels to the Bank of the Philippine Islands and failed to deliver the properties when demanded, prompting the estafa prosecution.
During trial at the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City, the prosecution presented its last witness and was given 15 days to formally offer its evidence but failed to do so. Petitioner moved to dismiss for lack of evidence and the private prosecutor and counsel for respondent failed to appear at a hearing on petitioner’s motion. On February 27, 2002, the MeTC issued an order denying the prosecution’s late submission and granted petitioner’s motion, dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration with the MeTC, explaining difficulty securing documentary exhibits which had been marked during trial and alleged the records were misplaced; petitioner opposed on double jeopardy grounds. On June 11, 2002, the MeTC set aside its dismissal, admitted the prosecution’s formal offer of documentary exhibits, and reinstated the case, giving the accused time to comment.
Petitioner sought certiorari relief from the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 132, Makati, which granted the petition and set aside the MeTC’s reinstatement, reasoning that the MeTC’s dismissal had the effect of an acquittal and thus barred another prosecution. Respondent elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC on May 25, 2005: the CA held the MeTC dismissal had not become final because respondent had timely moved for reconsideration, found no violation of petitioner’s right ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the MeTC’s dismissal for failure to prosecute amount to an acquittal that invoked the bar of double jeopardy under Section 7, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court?
- Was petitioner’s right to a speedy trial violated by the prosecution’s delay in formally offe...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)