G.R. No. 136264 ; May 28, 2004
ATTY. REYNALDO P. DIMAYACYAC, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. VICENTE Q. ROXAS, IRENE AGBADA-CRUZ, SIXTO AGBADA CRUZ, MERCEDES ARISTORENAS and ROMEO GOMEZ and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

An information for falsification of public documents (Criminal Case No. Q-91-18037) was filed against petitioner Atty. Reynaldo P. Dimayacyac and others. Before arraignment, petitioner moved to quash the information on the grounds that the filing officer lacked authority and that more than one offense was charged. The trial court granted the motion on the second ground and quashed the information. Over two years later, the prosecutor filed two new informations (Criminal Case Nos. Q-93-49988 and 49989) arising from the same alleged falsifications. Petitioner moved to quash these new informations on the ground of double jeopardy, arguing he was being indicted again for the same offenses after a dismissal without his consent.
The Regional Trial Court denied the motion, holding that Criminal Case No. Q-93-49988 involved a different document than those in the quashed case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, ruling that since the first information was quashed for charging more than one offense, the subsequent filing of an information for an offense included in the original charge does not constitute double jeopardy.

ISSUE

Whether the filing of the subsequent information for falsification of a public document places the petitioner in double jeopardy.

RULING

No, the petitioner is not placed in double jeopardy. The legal logic is anchored on the rules governing the dismissal of an information on the ground that it charges more than one offense. Under Section 3(e), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court, an information may be quashed if it charges more than one offense. Crucially, Section 6 of the same Rule provides that an order granting a motion to quash on this specific ground “shall not bar another prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or information.” The first information was quashed precisely because it improperly charged multiple offenses in a single information. Therefore, the subsequent prosecution for one of those offenses—falsification of a specific public document—is expressly permitted by the rules. Double jeopardy does not attach because the first case was terminated due to a defect in the information itself, not an acquittal or conviction on the merits, and the rules specifically allow for refiling a proper, single charge. The Court also found no violation of the right to a speedy disposition of the case, as the delay was not unreasonable and the petitioner did not timely assert this right. The petition was denied.