Case Digest (G.R. No. 183681)
Facts:
SPO2 Rolando Jamaca v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183681, July 27, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner SPO2 Rolando Jamaca was prosecuted for Grave Threats under paragraph 1 of Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code after private complainant Atty. Emilie P. Bangot, Jr. alleged that Jamaca threatened to "break the head" of Atty. Bangot in July 1997 while at the house of Rustom Roxas in Cagayan de Oro City. Atty. Bangot filed complaints both with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cagayan de Oro.
The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military dismissed the complaint by Resolution dated January 26, 1998, finding the accusation unfounded based on a witness statement (Rustom Roxas). Petitioner sought certiorari before the Court to challenge that dismissal, but the petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court in a Resolution dated July 29, 1998, which noted that the Court does not review findings of investigators conducting preliminary inquiries.
Separately, the complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor prospered and an Information was filed against Jamaca. At trial in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, the prosecution presented three witnesses (including Atty. Bangot’s son) who testified they heard petitioner utter the threatening words; petitioner and his wife denied making such threats. The RTC credited the prosecution testimony, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Grave Threats, and sentenced him to imprisonment of two months and one day and a fine of Five Hundred Pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Decision in a judgment promulgated May 26, 2004 and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated June 19, 2008. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court (Rule 45), later adding a Supplemental Petition; he argued (inter alia) forum shopping, res judicata/double jeopardy because of the Ombudsman dismissal, lack of jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor, and insufficiency/hearsay of the prosecution evidence. The Supreme Court resolved the case in the Third Division by the present Decision.
Issues:
- Should the Court of Appeals have dismissed the prosecution because private complainant committed forum shopping by filing similar complaints with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and the Office of the City Prosecutor?
- Does the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the complaint during preliminary investigation bar the subsequent prosecution by operation of res judicata or the Double Jeopardy Clause?
- Was the Information filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor void for lack of jurisdiction because the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military had dismissed the case?
- Was the evidence against petitioner insufficient because it was merely hearsay, warranting acquittal for Grave Threats?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)