Case Summary (G.R. No. 51770)
Petitioner
Joseph Cerezo filed a complaint for libel on September 12, 2002 and sought criminal prosecution of the respondents.
Respondents
Juliet Yaneza, Pablo Abunda, Jr., Vicente Afulugencia, and Oscar Mapalo were the accused. They were arraigned on November 24, 2003 and entered pleas of not guilty.
Key Dates and Procedural Milestones
- September 12, 2002: Complaint for libel filed by petitioner.
- February 18, 2003: OP‑QC found probable cause and the Information was filed before the RTC.
- November 20, 2003: OP‑QC reversed its earlier finding and recommended withdrawal of the Information.
- November 24, 2003: Arraignment; respondents pleaded not guilty.
- December 3, 2003: Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw Information filed before the RTC.
- March 17, 2004: RTC ordered dismissal of the criminal case.
- June 26, 2006: DOJ Secretary reversed the OP‑QC resolution and directed refiling of the Information.
- October 24, 2006: RTC granted petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and set aside the March 17, 2004 dismissal.
- February 26, 2007: RTC denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration of the October 24, 2006 order.
- CA proceedings culminating in July 11, 2008 decision and November 4, 2008 resolution (annulling RTC reinstatement).
- Supreme Court decision: June 1, 2011 (Second Division).
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable because decision date is 1990 or later), including constitutional protections such as due process and the prohibition against double jeopardy.
- Section 7, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended (text provided in the record), which defines the elements and effect of former conviction or acquittal and when double jeopardy operates.
- Controlling principles governing the respective roles of the public prosecutor, the Secretary of Justice, and the trial court in determining whether a case filed in court should be dismissed.
Factual Background
Petitioner filed libel charges and the OP‑QC initially found probable cause and filed the Information. Respondents then sought reconsideration with the OP‑QC, which reversed its finding on November 20, 2003 and recommended withdrawal of the Information. Despite the reversal, respondents had been arraigned on November 24, 2003. The RTC subsequently dismissed the case on March 17, 2004, relying on the OP‑QC recommendation. Petitioner sought reconsideration in the RTC, and the RTC deferred action pending the DOJ’s resolution. The DOJ Secretary reversed the OP‑QC on June 26, 2006 and directed refiling; the RTC then vacated its dismissal and ordered reinstatement of the case. Respondents challenged the RTC orders before the CA on double jeopardy grounds; the CA annulled the reinstatement, finding double jeopardy. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
Procedural Posture
The dispositive motions and rulings moved through the following trajectory: filing of information and arraignment; prosecutorial reversal and RTC dismissal; DOJ reversal and RTC reinstatement; CA certiorari annulling the RTC reinstatement on double jeopardy grounds; and Supreme Court review by petition for certiorari under Rule 45 contesting the CA’s disposition.
Issue Presented
Whether there was a valid termination of the case such that the respondents’ protection against double jeopardy had attached and would bar further prosecution.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis and Findings
- Principled allocation of roles: Once an information is filed in court, disposition of the case rests primarily with the court. The trial court must independently assess motions to dismiss or to withdraw an information and must embody that assessment in a written order. While the prosecutor’s recommendation and the DOJ Secretary’s ruling are persuasive, they are not binding on the court.
- Grave abuse for reliance without independent assessment: The RTC’s March 17, 2004 dismissal was fatally defective because the judge failed to make an independent evaluation of whether a prima facie case existed; instead, the judge relied blindly on the prosecutor’s recommendation. That reliance continued in the October 24, 2006 order reinstating the case, where the RTC again deferred to and relied on the DOJ Secretary’s resolution rather than performing an independent judicial assessment. By so doing, the trial court abdicated its judicial duty and committed grave abuse of discretion, violating due process.
- Effect on double jeopardy analysis: Double jeopardy attaches only when certain requisites are present, including a valid termination by a court of competent jurisdiction following a valid information and after the accused had pleaded. Because the March 17, 2004 dismissal was issued
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 51770)
Nature of the Case
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking annulment of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated July 11, 2008 and Resolution dated November 4, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 99088.
- The assailed CA rulings reversed and set aside two Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 92, Orders dated October 24, 2006 and February 26, 2007, which had revived Criminal Case No. Q-03-115490 (People of the Philippines v. Juliet Yaneza, Pablo Abunda, Jr., Oscar Mapalo and Vicente Afulugencia) after its earlier dismissal.
- The core legal question presented is whether there was a valid termination of the case such that double jeopardy attached and thus barred reinstatement or further prosecution.
Parties
- Petitioner: Joseph C. Cerezo.
- Respondents: People of the Philippines, Juliet Yaneza, Pablo Abunda, Jr., and Vicente Afulugencia (also referenced: Oscar Mapalo as one of the accused in the original criminal case).
Relevant Chronology
- September 12, 2002: Petitioner filed a complaint for libel against respondents and Oscar Mapalo.
- February 18, 2003: Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office (OP-QC) found probable cause and filed the Information before the RTC (Resolution dated February 18, 2003, I.S. No. 02-12597).
- November 24, 2003: Respondents were arraigned and all entered a “not guilty” plea.
- November 20, 2003: OP-QC reversed its earlier finding and recommended withdrawal of the Information.
- December 3, 2003: Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw Information filed before the RTC.
- March 17, 2004: RTC issued Order dismissing the criminal case, relying on the prosecutor’s motion/recommendation.
- June 26, 2006: Secretary of Justice promulgated resolution reversing and setting aside the OP-QC’s November 20, 2003 resolution, directing re-filing of the Information.
- October 24, 2006: RTC issued Order granting petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and setting aside its March 17, 2004 Order; directed arraignment/pre-trial dates.
- February 26, 2007: RTC denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration of the October 24, 2006 Order.
- CA proceedings culminating in: July 11, 2008 Decision and November 4, 2008 Resolution (CA-G.R. SP No. 99088).
- Supreme Court decision: G.R. No. 185230, June 1, 2011 (Second Division).
Factual Background
- Petitioner accused respondents of libel and initiated criminal proceedings by filing a complaint on September 12, 2002.
- The Quezon City Prosecutor initially found probable cause and filed an Information before the RTC on February 18, 2003.
- Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion to Re-evaluate Prosecution as Evidence before OP-QC; OP-QC reversed on November 20, 2003 and recommended withdrawal.
- Despite OP-QC’s subsequent reversal, respondents were already arraigned on November 24, 2003 and pleaded not guilty.
- The RTC, in deference to OP-QC’s November 20, 2003 resolution, dismissed the case on March 17, 2004.
- Petitioner sought reconsideration of the dismissal, arguing the OP-QC resolution was not final due to a Petition for Review pending before the Department of Justice (DOJ); RTC deferred action pending DOJ resolution.
- DOJ Secretary reversed OP-QC on June 26, 2006 and directed refiling; RTC thereafter set aside its March 17, 2004 Order on October 24, 2006 and ordered further proceedings.
- Respondents moved for reconsideration of the RTC’s reinstatement; denied on February 26, 2007; respondents filed certiorari with the CA alleging violation of double jeopardy.
Procedural Posture Before the CA
- Respondents petitioned the CA via Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, arguing the RTC Orders reinstating proceedings violated their constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
- CA found the RTC gravely abused its discretion by reviving the case after a valid termination, concluded all elements of double jeopardy existed, and annulled the RTC Orders.
Court of Appeals’ Ruling (as summarized in source)
- CA held that: (1) there was a valid Information sufficient in form and substance filed before a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) respondents had been arraigned and had pleaded; (3) the termination of the case was not expressly consented to by respondents; therefore, reinstatement/transmutation of the case intruded upon respondents’ right against double jeopardy.
- CA further concluded that the DOJ Secretary improperly took cognizance of the Petition for Review because DOJ Department Order No. 223 bars appeals when the accused has already been arraigned, or ma