23.

Joseph Cerezo vs People of the Philippines

GR No. 185230
June 1, 2011

FACTS: On September 12, 2002, petitioner Cerezo filed a case of libel against private respondents
Yaneza, Abunda JR., and Afulugencia as well as Mapalo before the Quezon City Prosecutors Office (OP-
QC). Finding probable cause against the respondents, the OP-QC filed the corresponding Information
before the RTC. However, on November 20, 2003, the OP-QC reversed its earlier findings and
recommended the dismissal of the case in its Resolution. They then filed before the RTC a Motion to
Dismiss and Withdraw Information but the respondents already were arraigned and pleaded not guilty
before such filing was done. The RTC granted the petitioners motion and ordered the dismissal of the
criminal case. Petitioner then moved for a Reconsideration arguing that the resolution was still subject for
review before the Secretary of Justice. RTC then deferred the action for the motion until the DOJ already
presented its resolution. On June 26, 2006, the Secretary of Justice promulgated its resolution reversing
the OP-QC resolution and directed the Information for libel to be refiled whereby the RTC granted the
petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. Respondents motion for Reconsideration was denied.

The Court of Appeals, through a petition for Certiorari filed by the respondents, found that the RTC
gravely abused its discretion in reinstating the case and found that elements of double jeopardy existed

Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration on the CAs Decision was denied, hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the double jeopardy is present.

HELD: The Court decided in the negative. Double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are
present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly
terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. A first jeopardy attaches only
(a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has
been entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent. In this case the Court ruled that the Decision of the
court on granting the dismissal of the case and thereafter allowing the subsequent filing of it was made
with grave abuse of discretion. The Court ordered the case to be remanded to the RTC thereby not
acquitting, convicting, nor dismissing the case as required for the first jeopardy to attach.

It is a well-entrenched rule that once a case is filed before the court, it is, then, within the sound discretion
of the court so much so that the Courts should assess the merits of the case independently and should
not only rely on the resolutions or findings of the prosecution. In this case, the RTC failed to make its own
decision based on its own determination on whether or not the respondents should be in trial. It simply
followed the recommendations of the prosecutors as it granted the Motion to Dismiss and Withdrawal by
the prosecution but afterwards allowed its refiling based on the resolution of the DOJ.