G.R. No. 134732 ; May 29, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. ACELO VERRA, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Acelo Verra was charged with murder in 1988 but remained at-large until May 24, 1996, when he voluntarily surrendered. On the same day, he was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and a hearing immediately commenced. The prosecution presented the victim’s wife, Damiana Cortezo, who testified she had executed an affidavit of desistance, was no longer interested in prosecuting, and that other witnesses had turned hostile. Based on this testimony, the prosecution, jointly with the defense, moved for dismissal. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case.
Subsequently, two other witnesses surfaced, expressing willingness to testify, and the victim’s sisters contested the lack of interest. The prosecution then filed a Motion to Set Aside the Order of Dismissal, alleging the State was misled and denied its day in court. The trial court granted the motion and reinstated the case. Verra challenged this via certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which ruled the dismissal had attained finality and could only be revived by filing a new information. The People elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the dismissal order had attained finality and that the State was not denied due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the appellate court’s decision. The legal logic rests on two pillars: absence of State denial of due process and the attachment of double jeopardy. First, the State was not denied its day in court. It was represented by a public prosecutor throughout the proceedings, presented its witness (Damiana), conducted direct examination, and jointly moved for dismissal based on the perceived insufficiency of evidence. The State actively participated and consented to the termination.
Second, and decisively, double jeopardy had attached. The requisites were met: a valid information was filed before a competent court; the accused was arraigned and pleaded not guilty; and the case was dismissed with the express consent of the accused. Crucially, an exception applies where dismissal is based on insufficiency of evidence, as was the case here, given the private complainant’s desistance and testimony regarding hostile witnesses. Consequently, the dismissal operated as an acquittal. The State’s belated attempt to revive the case after the dismissal order became final violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The fraud alleged by the prosecution was intrinsic, pertaining to the evidence presented during trial, which is not a ground to nullify a final judgment.