G.R. No. 183681 July 27, 2015
SPO2 ROLANDO JAMACA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Private complainant Atty. Emilie Bangot filed a complaint for Grave Threats against petitioner SPO2 Rolando Jamaca with both the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cagayan de Oro City. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, finding the accusation unfounded based on a statement from Rustom Roxas that no threatening words were uttered. This dismissal was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, the City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed an Information charging petitioner with Grave Threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on July 22, 1997, petitioner, with intent to kill, threatened Atty. Bangot by uttering, “KUNG MATANGTANG AKO SA TRABAHO, BUAKON KO ANG ULO NI ATTY. BANGOT…” in the presence of the complainant’s son. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Petitioner filed a petition for review, arguing forum shopping, double jeopardy/res judicata, lack of jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor, and that the allegations were hearsay.

ISSUE

1. Whether private complainant committed forum shopping by filing complaints with both the Ombudsman and the City Prosecutor.
2. Whether petitioner’s conviction violates the constitutional right against double jeopardy or the doctrine of res judicata due to the prior dismissal by the Ombudsman.
3. Whether the Office of the City Prosecutor had jurisdiction to file the Information after the Ombudsman had dismissed the case.
4. Whether the crime of Grave Threats was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

1. On Forum Shopping: The Supreme Court found no forum shopping. The test for forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. Here, the complaint before the Ombudsman was dismissed at the preliminary investigation stage and never reached a court of law. Thus, there was no pending case or prior judgment that would bar the filing of the case with the City Prosecutor.
2. On Double Jeopardy/Res Judicata: The claim of double jeopardy lacks merit. For double jeopardy to attach, a first jeopardy must have attached, which requires: (a) a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) a valid plea has been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or terminated without the accused’s express consent. The dismissal by the Ombudsman occurred during the preliminary investigation stage; no Information had been filed in court. Therefore, the first jeopardy never attached. The Court cited Vincoy v. Court of Appeals and Trinidad v. Office of the Ombudsman, ruling that a dismissal at the preliminary investigation is not equivalent to an acquittal and does not bar a subsequent prosecution based on a different or more complete set of evidence.
3. On Jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor: The Court held that the City Prosecutor had concurrent jurisdiction. Citing Flores v. Montemayor, the Court clarified that the Ombudsman’s power to investigate public officers is not exclusive but is shared with other agencies, including the Department of Justice (through prosecutors). Therefore, the City Prosecutor’s act of filing the Information after its own preliminary investigation was valid.
4. On Proof of the Crime: The Court affirmed the factual findings of the lower courts. The prosecution presented witnesses, including the complainant’s son and Phoebe Roxas, who testified to hearing the threat. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect. No compelling reason was shown to overturn these findings. The evidence established petitioner’s guilt for Grave Threats beyond reasonable doubt.
The petition was DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals were AFFIRMED.