ROBERTO P. ALMARIO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.

FLORENTINO
A. TUASON, JR., PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND RIZAL
COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP., respondents.

DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:

This appeal by certiorari seeks to set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals
dated November 21, 1996[1] and of January 7, 1997,[2] in CA-G.R. No. SP-42312,
which denied the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary
injunction instituted by petitioner against the Hon. Florentino A. Tuason, Jr., in his
capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 139, Regional Trial Court of Makati City, the Rizal
Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC), and the People of the Philippines.[3]
Involved in said petition were the orders of Judge Jaime D. Discaya and Judge Tuason
dated October 25, 1995[4] and April 11, 1996,[5] respectively, issued in Criminal
Cases Nos. 91-6761-62 which petitioner claimed were violative of his constitutional right
against double jeopardy but which respondent appellate court upheld.
The factual antecedents in these cases, as culled by the Court of Appeals, are as
follows:
Petitioner is one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 91-6761, for estafa thru falsification
of public document, and Criminal Case No. 91-6762, for estafa, with respondent RCBC
as the offended party in both cases.
The informations were filed on October 22, 1992. After petitioners arraignment on
March 18, 1992, pre-trial was held, which was terminated on October 21, 1994.
Thereafter, the cases were scheduled for continuous trial in December 1994, and in
January and February 1995, but the hearings were cancelled because the Presiding Judge
of the court was elevated to this Court and no trial judge was immediately
appointed/detailed thereto.
The hearing set for June 21, 1995, was postponed for lack of proof of notice to all the
accused and their counsel. The hearing on July 17, 1995, upon request of private
prosecutor, and without objection on the part of petitioners counsel, postponed to July
24, 1995. However, for lack of proof of service of notice upon petitioners three co-
accused, the hearing set for July 24, 1995, was likewise cancelled and the cases were
reset for trial on September 8 and 25, 1995.
On September 8, 1995, private complainant failed to appear despite due notice. Hence,
upon motion of petitioners counsel, respondent court issued the following order:
When this case was called for hearing, private complainant is not in Court despite notice.
Atty. Alabastro, counsel for accused Roberto Almario, moved that the case against the
latter be dismissed for failure to prosecute and considering that accused is entitled to a
speedy trial.
WHEREFORE, the case against accused Roberto Almario is hereby dismissed. With
respect to accused Spouses Susencio and Guillerma Cruz and Dante Duldulao, 1st
warrant be issued for their arrest.
SO ORDERED.
Upon motion of the private prosecutor and despite the opposition of petitioner,
respondent court in its Order dated October 25, 1995, reconsidered the Order of
September 8, 1995. The pertinent portion of said order reads as follows:
In Hipolito vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 108478-79, Feb. 21, 1993) the Supreme Court
held that the right of the accused to a speedy trial is deemed violated only when the
proceedings is attended by vexations, capricious and oppressive delays, or when
unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or
unjustifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to (e) lapse without the party having
his case tried. At least this right is relative, taking into (the) account the circumstances of
each case.
There has been no vexations, capricious and oppressive delays, or unjustified
postponements of the trial, or a long time is allowed to (e) lapse without the party having
his case tried which would constitute, according to the above case, violation of the right
of the accused to speedy trial. After arraignment of the accused, the pre-trial was set and
the same was ordered terminated on October 25, 1994. On June 21, 1995, the case was
set for initial presentation of evidence of the proof of service of the notices to the accused
and their respective counsels. On July 17, 1995, counsel for the accused did not interpose
objection to private prosecutors motion to postpone due to absence of witnesses. On
July 24, 1995, the trial could not proceed as, being a joint trial of three criminal cases, the
three other accused were not present. There were only three settings from the date of
termination of the pre-trial for the prosecution to present evidence and the same were
postponed with valid reasons.
The dismissal in the Order dated September 8, 1995, did not result in the acquittal of the
accused since the right of the accused to speedy trial has not been violated, and its
dismissal having been made upon the motion of the accused there is no double jeopardy.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Order dated September 8, 1995 dismissing the
charge/case against the accused Roberto Almario is reconsidered and set aside.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner sought a reconsideration of the above order. Acting on the Motion for
Reconsideration dated November 9, 1995, respondent Judge issued his assailed Order of
April 11, 1996, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion for Reconsideration dated 9 November
1995 is hereby denied for lack of merit considering that, based on the foregoing facts, the
proceedings in this case have not been prolonged unreasonably nor were there oppressive
delays and unjustified postponements in violation of the Accuseds constitutional right to
speedy trial.
SO ORDERED.[6]
Aggrieved by the foregoing order, petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a
petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction against the
presiding judge of Branch 139 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, RCBC and the
People of the Philippines. In a resolution dated November 21, 1996, respondent appellate
court denied the petition due course and dismissed it for lack of merit. Petitioners
motion to reconsider it was likewise denied for lack of merit in a resolution dated January
7, 1997.
Before us, petitioner maintains that the appellate court erred in sustaining the trial
court which, in turn, had gravely abused its discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction,
when it reconsidered the order which dismissed the criminal cases against him. Petitioner
asserts that this reversal was a violation of the doctrine of double jeopardy, as the
criminal cases were initially dismissed for an alleged violation of petitioners
constitutional right to a speedy trial.[7]
The issue for resolution is whether, in petitioners cases, double jeopardy had set in
so that petitioners constitutional right against such jeopardy had been violated.
Article III, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Sec. 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If
an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
Section 7, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. When an accused has been
convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without
his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or
information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of
the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the
offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any
offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the
former complaint or information.
xxx
Clearly, jeopardy attaches only (1) upon a valid indictment, (2) before a competent
court, (3) after arraignment, (4) when a valid plea has been entered, and (5) when the
defendant was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated
without the express consent of the accused.[8]
In the cases at bar, the order of dismissal based on a violation of the right to speedy
trial was made upon motion by counsel for petitioner before the trial court. It was made
at the instance of the accused before the trial court, and with his express consent.
Generally, the dismissal of a criminal case resulting in acquittal made with the express
consent of the accused or upon his own motion will not place the accused in double
jeopardy. However, this rule admits of two exceptions, namely: insufficiency of evidence
and denial of the right to speedy trial.[9] Double jeopardy may attach when the
proceedings have been prolonged unreasonably, in violation of the accuseds right to
speedy trial.[10]
Here we must inquire whether there was unreasonable delay in the conduct of the
trial so that violation of the right to speedy trial of the accused, herein petitioner, resulted.
For it must be recalled that in the application of the constitutional guaranty of the right to
speedy disposition of cases, particular regard must also be taken of the facts and
circumstances peculiar to each case.[11] Both the trial court and the appellate court
noted that after pre-trial of petitioners case was terminated on October 21, 1994,
continuous trial was set in the months of December 1994, and January and February of
1995. The scheduled hearings, however, were cancelled when the presiding judge was
promoted to the Court of Appeals, and his successor as trial judge was not immediately
appointed, nor another judge detailed to his sala.
Records show that on June 21, 1995, hearing was postponed for lack of proof of
notice to the accused and their counsel. The hearing on July 17, 1995, was postponed
upon motion of the private prosecutor without objection from petitioners counsel. The
hearing set on July 24, 1995 was reset, despite the presence of petitioner and his counsel,
because of lack of proof of service of notice to co-accused Dante Duldulao and the
spouses Susencio and Guillerma Cruz.[12]
As observed by respondent appellate court, delay in the trial was due to
circumstances beyond the control of the parties and of the trial court. The first and third
postponements were clearly justified on the ground of lack of notice to accused, co-
accused, and/or counsel. Another was made without objection from petitioners counsel.
However, on September 8, 1995, counsel for petitioner moved for dismissal of this case,
because of the absence of the private prosecutor due to a severe attack of gout and
arthritis, although he had sent his associate lawyer acceptable to the court.[13] All in all,
there were only three re-setting of hearing dates. Thus, after a closer analysis of these
successive events, the trial court realized that the dates of the hearings were transferred
for valid grounds. Hence, the trial court set aside its initial order and reinstated the cases
against petitioner,[14] which order the appellate court later sustained.
That there was no unreasonable delay of the proceedings is apparent from the
chronology of the hearings with the reasons for their postponements or transfers.
Petitioner could not refute the appellate courts findings that petitioners right to speedy
trial had not been violated. As both the trial and appellate courts have taken pains to
demonstrate, there was no unreasonable, vexatious and oppressive delay in the trial.
Hence, there was no violation of petitioners right to speedy trial as there were no
unjustified postponements which had prolonged the trial for unreasonable lengths of time.
[15]
There being no oppressive delay in the proceedings, and no postponements
unjustifiably sought, we concur with the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals that
petitioners right to speedy trial had not been infringed. Where the right of the accused to
speedy trial had not been violated, there was no reason to support the initial order of
dismissal.
It follows that petitioner cannot invoke the constitutional right against double
jeopardy when that order was reconsidered seasonably.[16] For as petitioners right to
speedy trial was not transgressed, this exception to the fifth element of double jeopardy
that the defendant was acquitted or convicted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without the express consent of the accused was not met. The trial courts
initial order of dismissal was upon motion of petitioners counsel, hence made with the
express consent of petitioner. That being the case, despite the reconsideration of said
order, double jeopardy did not attach. As this Court had occasion to rule in People vs.
Tampal, (244 SCRA 202) reiterated in People vs. Leviste,[17] where we overturned an
order of dismissal by the trial court predicated on the right to speedy trial
It is true that in an unbroken line of cases, we have held that the dismissal of cases on the
ground of failure to prosecute is equivalent to an acquittal that would bar further
prosecution of the accused for the same offense. It must be stressed, however, that these
dismissals were predicated on the clear right of the accused to speedy trial. These cases
are not applicable to the petition at bench considering that the right of the private
respondents to speedy trial has not been violated by the State. For this reason, private
respondents cannot invoke their right against double jeopardy.
Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals were thus not in error when they
allowed reinstatement of the cases against petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-42312,
dated November 21, 1996 and January 7, 1997, which upheld the orders of the Regional
Trial Court of Makati, Branch 139, in Criminal Cases Nos. 91-6761-62, are hereby
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.