Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 397 views

    Almario vs. Ca GR No. 127772, Mar 22, 2001 Quisumbing, J.: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Daniela Sandra Agoot
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Roberto Almario's right against double jeopardy was not violated when his criminal case was reinstated by the trial court. The trial court had initially dismissed the case against Almario for lack of notice to his co-accused, but reconsidered the dismissal upon the prosecutor's motion. The Supreme Court found that there were no oppressive delays in the proceedings against Almario and no unjustified postponements, so his right to a speedy trial had not been infringed. As such, there was no basis for the initial dismissal and Almario could not invoke double jeopardy protections since the case was seasonably reinstated with his express consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Almario vs. Ca GR No. 127772, Mar 22, 2001 Quisumbing, J.: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Daniela Sandra Agoot
    397 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Roberto Almario's right against double jeopardy was not violated when his criminal case was reinstated by the trial court. The trial court had initially dismissed the case against Almario for lack of notice to his co-accused, but reconsidered the dismissal upon the prosecutor's motion. The Supreme Court found that there were no oppressive delays in the proceedings against Almario and no unjustified postponements, so his right to a speedy trial had not been infringed. As such, there was no basis for the initial dismissal and Almario could not invoke double jeopardy protections since the case was seasonably reinstated with his express consent.

    Original Description:

    double jeopardy

    Original Title

    ALMARIO VS. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Roberto Almario's right against double jeopardy was not violated when his criminal case was reinstated by the trial court. The trial court had initially dismissed the case against Almario for lack of notice to his co-accused, but reconsidered the dismissal upon the prosecutor's motion. The Supreme Court found that there were no oppressive delays in the proceedings against Almario and no unjustified postponements, so his right to a speedy trial had not been infringed. As such, there was no basis for the initial dismissal and Almario could not invoke double jeopardy protections since the case was seasonably reinstated with his express consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    397 views2 pages

    Almario vs. Ca GR No. 127772, Mar 22, 2001 Quisumbing, J.: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Daniela Sandra Agoot
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Roberto Almario's right against double jeopardy was not violated when his criminal case was reinstated by the trial court. The trial court had initially dismissed the case against Almario for lack of notice to his co-accused, but reconsidered the dismissal upon the prosecutor's motion. The Supreme Court found that there were no oppressive delays in the proceedings against Almario and no unjustified postponements, so his right to a speedy trial had not been infringed. As such, there was no basis for the initial dismissal and Almario could not invoke double jeopardy protections since the case was seasonably reinstated with his express consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    ALMARIO VS.

    CA
    GR No. 127772, Mar 22, 2001
    QUISUMBING, J.:

    FACTS:

     Petitioner ROBERTO P. ALMARIO was charged of estafa and estafa


    through falsification of public document in the informations on October
    22, 1992.

     After his arraignment, pre-trial was held and terminated. Schedules for
    continuous trial for the case was then set.

     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 petitioner's counsel, postponed to July
    24, 1995.

     However, for lack of proof of service of notice upon petitioner's 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 petitioner's counsel, respondent court issued an


    order of dismissal of the case.

     However, the trial court reconsidered its order upon private


    prosecutor’s motion.

     Petitioner contends that his right against double jeopardy has been
    violated.

    ISSUE:

    WON the right of the accused against double jeopardy has been violated.

    HELD:
    NO. 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 accused’s
    right to speedy trial.[10]

    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 petitioner’s 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
    petitioner’s 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. 

    You might also like