G.R. No. 103323 January 21, 1993
RAMON S. PAULIN, ANGELA F. PAULIN and JOSE BACHO, petitioners, vs. HON. CELSO M. GIMENEZ (In his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC, Cebu City, Branch 5), HON. MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES (In his capacity as Judge of the MTC of Talisay, Branch IX, Cebu); CASTRO BELME, and The PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

The case arose from an incident on November 10, 1989, where a jeep ridden by private respondent and Barangay Captain Castro Belme Mabuyo was overtaken by a Nissan Patrol ridden by petitioners Dr. Ramon and Angela Paulin, smothering Mabuyo with dust. Irked, Mabuyo followed the vehicle. Later, while Mabuyo was investigating problems in his barangay, Dr. Ramon Paulin and his wife Angela allegedly pointed their guns at Mabuyo, with their companion Jose Bacho acting as back-up. Mabuyo called for police assistance. Sensing they were outnumbered, the spouses put their guns down and were brought to the police station. A complaint for “grave threats” was filed against the spouses Paulin and Bacho, docketed as Criminal Case No. 5204. A separate complaint for “grave threats and oral defamation” was filed against Mabuyo, docketed as Criminal Case No. 5213. The cases were jointly tried. On June 13, 1990, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Talisay, Cebu, acting on a motion of the spouses Paulin and Jose Bacho, dismissed Criminal Case No. 5204. On July 2, 1990, Mabuyo filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the MTC granted on July 3, 1990. Petitioners sought to set aside this resolution, but were denied. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which dismissed the petition on December 19, 1991. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the MTC’s dismissal of Criminal Case No. 5204 against petitioners precludes a subsequent reconsideration or reversal on the ground of double jeopardy.
2. Whether the Rule on Summary Procedure correctly prohibits motions to dismiss and petitions for certiorari in this case.

RULING

1. No, the dismissal did not constitute double jeopardy. For double jeopardy to attach, the dismissal must be without the express consent of the accused. In this case, the dismissal was granted upon motion of the petitioners. Therefore, they are deemed to have waived their protection against double jeopardy. Furthermore, the dismissal was not an acquittal based on the merits or the evidence. The MTC’s dismissal did not make a finding on the guilt or innocence of the petitioners. The dismissal was based on a procedural ground, as it appeared the proper charge should have been “disturbance of public performance” under Article 153 of the Revised Penal Code instead of “grave threats” under Article 282. The prosecution was also deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case, as the dismissal was ordered when the prosecution still had to present several witnesses. A dismissal that violates the prosecution’s right to due process is void for lack of jurisdiction, and thus does not terminate the first jeopardy.
2. Yes, the Rule on Summary Procedure was correctly applied. Petitioners’ motion to dismiss, filed before the prosecution had rested its case, was a prohibited pleading under the Rule. Petitioners’ claim that they filed a demurrer to evidence is untenable. A demurrer to evidence presupposes that the prosecution has already rested its case. Here, the prosecution was still in the process of presenting its evidence. The submission of affidavits to the court does not mean the prosecution had finished presenting evidence, as the affiants are still required to testify and affirm the contents of their affidavits.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED and the decision of the Regional Trial Court dated December 19, 1991 is AFFIRMED.