GR 127772; (March, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127772 March 22, 2001
ROBERTO P. ALMARIO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Roberto Almario was an accused in two estafa cases. After arraignment and pre-trial, several scheduled hearings were postponed for valid reasons, including the judge’s promotion, lack of proof of notice to co-accused, and the private complainant’s absence. On September 8, 1995, upon motion of Almario’s counsel due to the private complainant’s failure to appear, the trial court dismissed the case against him for failure to prosecute, invoking his right to a speedy trial. However, upon the private prosecutor’s motion, the trial court reconsidered and reinstated the cases in an Order dated October 25, 1995, finding no violation of the right to speedy trial as the delays were not vexatious, capricious, or oppressive.
ISSUE
Whether the reconsideration and reinstatement of the criminal cases against Almario violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy.
RULING
No, double jeopardy did not attach. For double jeopardy to apply, the following elements must concur: (1) a valid indictment, (2) a competent court, (3) the defendant’s arraignment, (4) a valid plea, and (5) the case’s termination without the accused’s express consent. The Court found the fifth element lacking. The initial dismissal was granted upon the motion of Almario’s own counsel, constituting express consent from the accused. Furthermore, the right to a speedy trial was not violated. The delays were justified and not oppressive, involving only three settings from the pre-trial’s termination. The postponements were due to the judge’s promotion, procedural notices, and the complainant’s single absence, not state-induced vexatious delays. Since the dismissal was with Almario’s consent and not based on a valid speedy trial violation, it was not an acquittal. Therefore, the trial court retained jurisdiction to reconsider its order, and double jeopardy did not bar the reinstatement of the cases. The resolutions of the Court of Appeals were affirmed.