People vs. Declaro
Uploaded by
AlphaZuluPeople vs. Declaro
Uploaded by
AlphaZuluPEOPLE VS.
DECLARO
G.R. No. 64362
February 9, 1989.
Nature of the case: The requisites necessary for jeopardy to be raised as a defense of the accused.
Gancayo, J.:
FACTS:
Edgar Ibabao was charged for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence in a complaint
filed as Criminal Case No. 1028-N following a traffic accident where Ibabao was the primary cause
thereof. A few weeks later, a second information was filed against Ibabao from a different complainant.
On this information, Ibabao was charged for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence. The
case is docketed as Criminal Case No. 1421. Both complaints arose from the same traffic accident. Upon
the arraignment of the accused, the complainant and the prosecuting fiscal failed to appear despite due
notice. The Counsel for the accused verbally moved to dismiss the case for the lack of interest on the
part of the prosecution, to which was granted by the court. A motion for reconsideration for the said
order was filed by the fiscal and was granted by the same court and the case was therefore set for trial.
However, the accused filed for a motion for reconsideration, to which again, the same court granted and
thus, dismissing the case anew. Consequently, the counsel for the accused filed a motion to dismiss
Criminal Case No. 1421 on the ground that the dismissal of the prior case is a bar to the prosecution of
the latter. In an order by the trial court, the case was dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy. Thus,
this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the requisites necessary for jeopardy to be raised as a defense of the accused is
present in this case.
RULING:
No, requisites necessary for jeopardy to be raised as a defense of the accused is not present in
this case.
Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court provides— “SEC. 9. Former conviction or acquittal or
former jeopardy.— When a defendant shall have been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him
dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the defendant, 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 defendant had pleaded to the charge, the conviction
or acquittal of the defendant 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.”
To raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy
must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
(3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. Legal jeopardy attaches only (a)
upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been
entered, and (e) when the defendant was acquitted or convicted, or the case was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.
It is true that in some cases where the prosecution was not prepared for trial since the
complainant and/or his witnesses did not appear at the trial, this court held that the dismissal is
equivalent to an acquittal that would bar further prosecution of the defendant for the same offense. A
review of these cases shows, however, that the prosecution sought postponement of the trial on two or
more occasions.
In the instant case, the complaining witness and the prosecutor failed to appear only in the first
hearing. Even if the court did not dismiss the case but merely postponed the hearing to another date,
there would not have been a denial of the right of the accused to a speedy trial. The right of the accused
to have a speedy trial is violated when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured,
or when, without good cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without his
case being tried. None of said situations exists in the present case.
Double jeopardy will apply even if the dismissal is made with the express consent of the
accused, or upon his own motion, only if it is predicated on either of two grounds, i.e., insufficiency of
the evidence or denial of the right to a speedy trial. In both cases, the dismissal will have the effect of an
acquittal. Since the dismissal in this case does not fall under either of these two instances and it was
made with the express consent of the accused, it would not thereby be a bar to another prosecution for
the same offense.