Case Digest (G.R. No. L-31594)
Facts:
In Ong Siu, et al. vs. Hon. Antonio P. Paredes, et al. (G.R. No. L-21638, July 26, 1966), the case arose from multiple criminal charges filed against the petitioners in the Municipal Court of Manila. Petitioners Ong Siu and Sy So Ty were accused of slight physical injuries (Crim. Case No. F-038479), while Francisco Ong and Lucio Ong were charged with light threats (Crim. Case No. F-038480). Conversely, respondents Charlie Fung and Benjamin Lu faced accusations of serious and slight physical injuries in Criminal Cases Nos. F-038477 and F-038478, respectively. All four cases were initially tried together by Judge Andres Sta. Maria, who issued a single decision on July 7, 1962. Before the decision could be promulgated, Judge Sta. Maria was appointed as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Mindoro, with Judge Milagros German taking over his duties in the Municipal Court of Manila. Following this transition, Charlie Fung and Benjamin Lu petitioned to declare the unpromulgated deciCase Digest (G.R. No. L-31594)
Facts:
- Background and Procedural History
- Petitioners/Appellants and Respondents/Appellees:
- Petitioners/Appellants – Ong Siu, Sy So Ty, Francisco Ong, and Lucio Ong – were charged in two separate criminal cases (Crim. Case Nos. F-038479 and F-038480) involving slight physical injuries and light threats, respectively.
- Respondents/Appellees – Charlie Fung and Benjamin Lu – were charged in Criminal Cases Nos. F-038477 and F-038478 for serious and slight physical injuries.
- Consolidation of Cases:
- All four cases were jointly tried by Judge Andres Sta. Maria in Branch II of the Municipal Court of Manila.
- A single decision was rendered on July 7, 1962, addressing all the cases.
- Judicial Transitions and Impact on Promulgation
- Change in Judicial Assignment:
- On July 9, 1962, Judge Sta. Maria was appointed as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Mindoro before the decision could be promulgated.
- Judge Milagros German succeeded him as the Municipal Judge of Manila.
- Petition for Nullification:
- Respondents Fung and Lu petitioned to have the unpromulgated decision declared null and void.
- By Judge German’s order on August 14, 1962, the unpromulgated decision was nullified as if no trial had been held.
- Subsequent Developments Leading to the Controversy
- Interim Provisions and Order for Promulgation:
- Following Judge German’s resignation, Solicitor Lauro C. Maiquez was temporarily assigned to preside over Branch II.
- Acting Judge Maiquez initially directed that the decision of Judge Sta. Maria be promulgated on August 29, 1962 for the petitioners/appellants.
- Appointment of Judge Paredes and Re-promulgation:
- On August 23, 1962, Judge Antonio P. Paredes was appointed to the vacant Municipal Judge position.
- Judge Paredes scheduled the promulgation of Judge Sta. Maria’s decision, doing so in the presence of Judge Paredes but only for the petitioners, while omitting the defendants Fung and Lu who did not appear.
- Subsequent Certiorari and Prohibition Proceedings:
- Fung and Lu, after being ordered arrested for non-appearance, instituted a certiorari and prohibition proceeding aimed at restraining the promulgation of the decision.
- The Court of First Instance of Manila, in a November 5, 1962 decision presided by Judge Jose N. Leuterio, granted the writ on the ground that the decision penned by Judge Sta. Maria could not be validly promulgated after his cessation as Municipal Judge.
- Petition for Restraining Retrial and Double Jeopardy Allegation:
- Thereafter, Judge Paredes ordered a retrial of the four criminal cases on March 15, 1963.
- The petitioners/appellants then sought a writ from the Court of First Instance to restrain the retrial on the basis that the decision, having been promulgated, allegedly protected them from double jeopardy.
- Arguments Presented by the Petitioners/Appellants
- Validity of the Promulgation:
- The petitioners argued that because the decision was signed by Judge Sta. Maria while he was still Municipal Judge, its subsequent promulgation—even in his physical absence—remained valid.
- They cited Section 6 of Rule 116 (now Rule 120) of the Rules of Court to support that the presence of the judge, though normally required, is not indispensable if he is merely absent or outside the province/city.
- Invocation of Double Jeopardy:
- It was contended that the valid promulgation of an acquittal judgment barred a retrial, as retrying them would subject the accused to double jeopardy for the same offenses.
Issues:
- Validity of the Promulgation Procedure
- Was the promulgation of Judge Sta. Maria’s decision legally valid when executed after his termination as Municipal Judge of Manila?
- Does the provision under Section 6 of Rule 116, which allows promulgation in the judge’s absence, extend to situations where the judge had ceased to hold office?
- Applicability of the Double Jeopardy Defense
- Can the petitioners successfully invoke the defense of double jeopardy on the ground that a valid judgment of acquittal had already been rendered and promulgated?
- Is there any valid acquittal or termination of prosecution on which double jeopardy may be predicated in the absence of a final judgment during the judge’s incumbency?
- Impact of Judicial and Procedural Irregularities
- Do the effects of the nullification of Judge Sta. Maria’s originally rendered decision and the subsequent retransmission for promulgation render the retrial procedurally proper?
- How do comparable cases (e.g., People vs. Court of Appeals, People vs. Bonifacio So y Ortega, Luna vs. Rodriguez) influence the interpretation of the Rules of Court regarding promulgation?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)