G.R. No. 163741 ; August 7, 2007
SUMMERVILLE GENERAL MERCHANDISING & CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. HON. ANTONIO M. EUGENIO, JR., in his capacity as PRESIDING JUDGE of RTC-MANILA, BR. 24, and ELIDAD KHO, VIOLETA KHO, and ROGER KHO, Respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a complaint for unfair competition filed by petitioner Summerville General Merchandising & Co., Inc. against private respondents (the Khos). After investigation, the City Prosecutor of Manila recommended prosecution, and an Information was filed before the Manila RTC. The Khos pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. Subsequently, the Department of Justice (DOJ), upon review, initially issued a resolution dismissing the complaint. Based on this, the public prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw Information, which the RTC granted in its October 24, 2001 Order. However, the DOJ later reversed itself upon petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and ordered the refiling of the Information.
The RTC, in subsequent Orders dated August 21, 2002 and April 2, 2003, refused to reinstate the case, holding that any revival would constitute double jeopardy. The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC’s stance, ruling that double jeopardy had attached upon the grant of the withdrawal of the Information.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the dismissal of the criminal case via the withdrawal of the Information barred its reinstatement on the ground of double jeopardy.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the assailed CA Decision and RTC Orders. The Court held that double jeopardy did not attach. For double jeopardy to apply, the following requisites must concur: (1) a valid complaint or information; (2) filed before a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and (4) the accused has been convicted, acquitted, or the case has been dismissed or terminated without the express consent of the accused.
The pivotal element missing here was the fourth requisite. The RTC’s October 24, 2001 Order granting the withdrawal of the Information was issued solely on the basis of the public prosecutor’s motion, which was anchored on an interim and subsequently reversed DOJ resolution. The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by granting the withdrawal without conducting an independent assessment of whether there was indeed a lack of probable cause. A dismissal based solely on the prosecutor’s request, without a judicial determination of the merits, is not equivalent to an acquittal or a valid dismissal that would bar another prosecution. Since the dismissal was not valid and legal, the accused were not placed in jeopardy. Consequently, the case was remanded to the RTC to independently evaluate the existence of probable cause.