Title
People vs. Domingo
Case
G.R. No. 204895
Decision Date
Mar 21, 2018
Joel Domingo acquitted as prosecution violated his right to speedy trial and failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; double jeopardy applied.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 136143)

Applicable Law

The 1987 Philippine Constitution governs the legal proceedings relevant to this case, with particular emphasis on the right to a speedy trial, double jeopardy, and the standards of proof in criminal cases.

Procedural History

The case arose from three Informations filed against Joel Domingo and Roel Domingo for the murder of Virgilio Dalere and Glenn Rodriguez and the attempted murder of Roque Bareng, occurring on February 26, 2005. After initial arraignment and motions to re-raffle the cases due to delays, the RTC dismissed the charges due to the prosecution's failure to present evidence. The dismissal was later reconsidered upon the prosecution's claim that witnesses had not received proper notice, leading to the case being reopened.

Summary of Evidence

The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of Roque Bareng, who alleged that Joel Domingo was one of the assailants during the shooting incident. Bareng’s account, however, had inconsistencies, particularly concerning details regarding the identities and actions of the assailants. The defense presented alibi witnesses, asserting that Domingo was attending a social dance at the time of the shootings—a claim supported by witnesses who corroborated his whereabouts.

Claims of Error

Joel Domingo's appeal centered on allegations that the CA erred by allowing his re-arrest and that his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy was violated when the RTC granted the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration after initially dismissing the cases. Additionally, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him.

Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that Joel Domingo was indeed deprived of his right to a speedy trial due to the unreasonable delays caused by the prosecution’s failure to present evidence and the lack of substantiated justification for these delays. The protracted nature of the trial infringed upon his constitutional rights and led to his unjustified incarceration, constituting a violation of his due process rights. The Co

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.