G.R. No. 211564 - Evangelista vs. Screenex, Inc.

Petitioner William Co (Co), also known as Xu Quing He, is the accused in several criminal cases filed for violation of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Bilang 22.
Respondent New Prosperity Plastic Products, represented by Elizabeth Uy (Uy), is the private complainant in Criminal Case Nos. 206655-59, 206661-77, and 209634, raffled to the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 49 of Caloocan City.

In the absence of Uy and her private counsel, the cases were provisionally dismissed on June 9, 2003 pursuant to Section 8, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules).
Uy received a copy of the dismissal order on July 2, 2003; her counsel-of-record received a copy on July 3, 2003.
On July 2, 2004, Uy, through counsel, filed a Motion to Revive the criminal cases.
Judge Belen B. Ortiz, MeTC Branch 49 Presiding Judge, granted the motion on October 14, 2004 and denied Co’s motion for reconsideration.

Co filed a motion for recusation against Judge Ortiz, who inhibited herself on January 10, 2005.
The cases were then re-raffled to MeTC Branch 50 of Caloocan City.
On March 17, 2005, Co filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the RTC of Caloocan City, challenging the revival of the criminal cases; it was dismissed for lack of merit on May 23, 2005.
Co’s motion for reconsideration was denied on December 16, 2005.
Co elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 docketed as G.R. No. 171096, which was dismissed on February 13, 2006 and became final and executory on March 20, 2006.

Co filed a Motion for Permanent Dismissal on July 13, 2006 of the re-raffled cases.
Uy opposed the motion, arguing that the issues were already resolved with finality in G.R. No. 171096.
Judge Esteban V. Gonzaga granted Co’s motion on September 4, 2006 and denied Uy’s motion for reconsideration on November 16, 2006.

Uy filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC Branch 121 which, on January 28, 2008, annulled and set aside the September 4 and November 16, 2006 Orders and directed the MeTC Branch 50 to proceed with trial.
Co filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition and denied the motion for reconsideration via resolutions dated April 30 and August 1, 2008 respectively.

Co filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court assailing the CA resolutions and praying for temporary restraining order (TRO) / writ of preliminary injunction (WPI).

Whether the dismissal of the criminal cases against Co on the ground of denial of his right to speedy trial constitutes final dismissal.

Whether the MeTC acted with jurisdiction in reviving the criminal cases which were dismissed on the ground of denial of speedy trial.

Whether the one-year time bar for revival is computed from the issuance of the order of provisional dismissal.
Whether the actual number of days in a year (including leap years) governs the computation of the one-year time bar.
Whether the provisionally dismissed cases are revived ipso facto by filing a motion to revive.