Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Cerezo V People - Odt

    Uploaded by

    mary grace bana
    This case involved a libel complaint filed by Joseph Cerezo against respondents Juliet Yaneza, Pablo Abunda, Jr., and Vicente Afulugencia. The Quezon City Prosecutors Office initially found probable cause and filed an information, but later recommended withdrawing the information. The trial court dismissed the case based on the prosecutor's recommendation. However, the Department of Justice reversed this decision and directed reinstating the case. The respondents argued this violated double jeopardy. The Court held that the trial court must make an independent assessment of the merits and not simply rely on the prosecutor or DOJ. Since the dismissal order was made with grave abuse of discretion, double jeopardy did not apply. The case was

    Copyright:

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

    Cerezo V People - Odt

    Uploaded by

    mary grace bana
    27 views3 pages
    This case involved a libel complaint filed by Joseph Cerezo against respondents Juliet Yaneza, Pablo Abunda, Jr., and Vicente Afulugencia. The Quezon City Prosecutors Office initially found probable cause and filed an information, but later recommended withdrawing the information. The trial court dismissed the case based on the prosecutor's recommendation. However, the Department of Justice reversed this decision and directed reinstating the case. The respondents argued this violated double jeopardy. The Court held that the trial court must make an independent assessment of the merits and not simply rely on the prosecutor or DOJ. Since the dismissal order was made with grave abuse of discretion, double jeopardy did not apply. The case was

    Original Title

    Cerezo v people.odt

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a libel complaint filed by Joseph Cerezo against respondents Juliet Yaneza, Pablo Abunda, Jr., and Vicente Afulugencia. The Quezon City Prosecutors Office initially found probable cause and filed an information, but later recommended withdrawing the information. The trial court dismissed the case based on the prosecutor's recommendation. However, the Department of Justice reversed this decision and directed reinstating the case. The respondents argued this violated double jeopardy. The Court held that the trial court must make an independent assessment of the merits and not simply rely on the prosecutor or DOJ. Since the dismissal order was made with grave abuse of discretion, double jeopardy did not apply. The case was

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    27 views3 pages

    Cerezo V People - Odt

    Uploaded by

    mary grace bana
    This case involved a libel complaint filed by Joseph Cerezo against respondents Juliet Yaneza, Pablo Abunda, Jr., and Vicente Afulugencia. The Quezon City Prosecutors Office initially found probable cause and filed an information, but later recommended withdrawing the information. The trial court dismissed the case based on the prosecutor's recommendation. However, the Department of Justice reversed this decision and directed reinstating the case. The respondents argued this violated double jeopardy. The Court held that the trial court must make an independent assessment of the merits and not simply rely on the prosecutor or DOJ. Since the dismissal order was made with grave abuse of discretion, double jeopardy did not apply. The case was

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Cerezo

    vs
    People of the Philippines

    Facts:
    Petitioner Joseph Cerezo filed a complaint for libel against respondents
    Juliet Yaneza, Pablo Abunda, Jr., and Vicente Afulugencia (respondents),
    as well as Oscar Mapalo (Mapalo). Finding probable cause to indict
    respondents, the Quezon City Prosecutors Office (OP-QC) filed the
    corresponding Information against them before the RTC. Respondents
    thereafter filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Motion to Re-evaluate
    Prosecutions Evidence before the OP-QC. In its resolution, the OP-QC
    reversed its earlier finding and recommended the withdrawal of the
    Information. Consequently, a Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw Information
    was filed before the RTC on December 3, 2003. During the intervening
    period, specifically on November 24, 2003, respondents were arraigned. All
    of them entered a not guilty plea. In deference to the prosecutor’s last
    resolution, the RTC ordered the criminal case dismissed in its Order.

    Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the said Order, arguing


    that the OP-QC resolution has not yet attained finality, considering that the
    same was the subject of a Petition for Review filed before the Department
    of Justice (DOJ). The RTC deferred action on the said motion to await the
    resolution of the DOJ. The Secretary of Justice promulgated his resolution
    reversing and setting aside the OP-QCs resolution, and directing the latter
    to refile the earlier Information for libel. The RTC issued its first assailed
    Order granting petitioners motion for reconsideration, conformably with the
    resolution of the DOJ Secretary and setting aside its last Order granting the
    dismissal of the case against the respondents and order the reinstatement
    of the case.
    REPORT THIS AD

    Respondents moved for reconsideration, but the motion was denied in the
    RTC.

    The respondents elevated their predicament to the CA arguing that the


    RTC Orders violated their constitutional right against double jeopardy. The
    CA found the RTC to have gravely abused its discretion in ordering the
    reinstatement of the case. The CA annulled the impugned RTC Orders,
    ruling that all the elements of double jeopardy exist. There was a valid
    Information sufficient in form and substance filed before a court of
    competent jurisdiction to which respondents had pleaded, and that the
    termination of the case was not expressly consented to by respondents;
    hence, the same could not be revived or refiled without transgressing
    respondents right against double jeopardy. The CA further found that the
    DOJ Secretary improperly took cognizance of the Petition for Review
    because DOJ Department Order No. 223 mandates that no appeal shall be
    entertained if the accused has already been arraigned or, if the arraignment
    took place during the pendency of the appeal, the same shall be dismissed.

    Petitioner interposed the instant appeal when his motion for reconsideration
    of the CA Decision was denied.

    Issue:
    Whether there was a valid termination of the case so as to usher
    in the impregnable wall of double jeopardy.
    Ruling:
    The Court held that in resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw
    an Information, the trial court should not rely solely and merely on the
    findings of the public prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice. It is the courts
    bounden duty to assess independently the merits of the motion, and this
    assessment must be embodied in a written order disposing of the
    motion. While the recommendation of the prosecutor or the ruling of the
    Secretary of Justice is persuasive, it is not binding on courts.
    The Court noticed that it is obvious from the Order of the RTC, dismissing
    the criminal case, that the RTC judge failed to make his own determination
    of whether or not there was a prima facie case to hold respondents for
    trial. He failed to make an independent evaluation or assessment of the
    merits of the case. The RTC judge blindly relied on the manifestation and
    recommendation of the prosecutor when he should have been more
    circumspect and judicious in resolving the Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw
    Information especially so when the prosecution appeared to be uncertain,
    undecided, and irresolute on whether to indict respondents. The same
    holds true with respect to the Order, which reinstated the case. The RTC
    judge failed to make a separate evaluation and merely awaited the
    resolution of the DOJ Secretary.
    By relying solely on the manifestation of the public prosecutor and the
    resolution of the DOJ Secretary, the trial court abdicated its judicial power
    and refused to perform a positive duty enjoined by law. The said Orders
    were thus stained with grave abuse of discretion and violated the
    complainant’s right to due process. They were void, had no legal standing,
    and produced no effect whatsoever.

    The Court remanded the case to the RTC, so that the latter can rule on the
    merits of the case to determine if a prima facie case exists and
    consequently resolve the Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw
    Information anew.
    The Court also held that double jeopardy did not set in. 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.
    Since the Court have held Order granting the motion to dismiss was
    committed with grave abuse of discretion, then respondents were not
    acquitted nor was there a valid and legal dismissal or termination of the
    case. The fifth requisite which requires the conviction and acquittal of the
    accused, or the dismissal of the case without the approval of the accused,
    was not met. Thus, double jeopardy has not set in. The petition was
    granted and the Supreme Court remanded the case to QC-RTC for
    evaluation on whether probable cause exists to hold respondents for trial.

    You might also like