Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22345)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Hon. Amador Gomez, G.R. No. L-22345, May 29, 1967, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bengzon, J.P., writing for the Court. The petition challenges as null an order of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu dismissing an information for alleged copra overshipment in violation of Section 4, Monetary Board Circular No. 31, in relation to Section 34 of Republic Act No. 265.At the request of the Monetary Board the Secretary of Justice designated Special Prosecutor Enrique A. Agana to investigate and prosecute crimes in connection with copra exportation. On December 6, 1962 Special Prosecutor Agana, jointly with the Fiscal of Cebu City, filed an information in the CFI of Cebu against seven persons for alleged overshipment/overexport/smuggling from February–March 1961 of 1,700 long tons of copra valued at $255,000 in excess of licensed quantities. The accused included Cresencio I. Richards, Richard J. Boyarski, Prudencio Uy (officers of Corominas, Richards & Co., Inc.), Laura Gingo, Eduardo R. Veloso, Leoncio Soronio and Ignacio Dagtahan (representatives of PCA, BIR, Customs and PC respectively to the Export Coordination Committee).
After filing, the defendants presented several motions to quash and bills of particulars which the court eventually denied; by September 27, 1963 all accused pleaded not guilty and the trial was set for October 23–24, 1963. Notice of trial was served on Assistant Fiscal Rafael Ybanez but Special Prosecutor Agana was not separately served; Agana was in Tacloban attending another matter and did not appear. Assistant Fiscal Ybanez informed the court he was not ready because the prosecution's records were with Agana, and presented telegrams requesting postponement. The court "sounded out" six accused (Laura Gingo's counsel had moved for postponement); defense counsel vigorously opposed postponement and provisional dismissal. Thereupon the respondent Judge ordered the case dismissed as to all accused except Laura Gingo.
Special Prosecutor Agana moved for reconsideration; Veloso, Soronio and Dagtahan opposed on double jeopardy grounds. The motion was denied October 31, 1963. On January 20, 1964 the State filed this petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court seeking annulment of the dismissal as made with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the dismissal order of October 23, 1963 issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, thereby warranting certiorari?
- Does the dismissal order (if sustained) bar reprosecution under the constitutional protection against double jeopardy?
- Should respondent Judge be disqualified or deemed inhibited from further t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)