G.R. No. 185230; June 1, 2011
JOSEPH C. CEREZO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, JULIET YANEZA, PABLO ABUNDA, JR., and VICENTE AFULUGENCIA, Respondents.

FACTS

On September 12, 2002, petitioner Joseph Cerezo filed a complaint for libel against respondents Juliet Yaneza, Pablo Abunda, Jr., Vicente Afulugencia, and Oscar Mapalo. The Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office found probable cause and filed an Information on February 18, 2003. Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the prosecutor, who reversed his finding on November 20, 2003, and recommended withdrawal of the Information. On November 24, 2003, respondents were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, a Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw Information was filed. On March 17, 2004, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the motion and dismissed the case, relying heavily on the prosecutor’s recommendation. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing the prosecutor’s reversal was not final due to a pending Petition for Review at the Department of Justice (DOJ). The RTC deferred action. On June 26, 2006, the DOJ Secretary reversed the prosecutor’s resolution and directed the refiling of the Information. Consequently, on October 24, 2006, the RTC granted petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, vacated its dismissal order, and reinstated the case, finding no double jeopardy as the dismissal order was not yet final. Respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied. Respondents then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which annulled the RTC Orders, ruling that the reinstatement violated respondents’ right against double jeopardy, as all its elements were present, and that the DOJ Secretary improperly took cognizance of the appeal post-arraignment.

ISSUE

Whether there was a valid termination of the case so as to usher in the impregnable wall of double jeopardy.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding it meritorious. The Court ruled that the RTC’s March 17, 2004 Order of dismissal was void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. The trial court failed to perform its bounden duty to make an independent assessment of the merits of the Motion to Dismiss and Withdraw Information, instead relying solely on the prosecutor’s recommendation. The same flaw tainted the October 24, 2006 Order reinstating the case, as the RTC merely awaited and conformed to the DOJ Secretary’s resolution without independent judicial evaluation. Consequently, the dismissal was not a valid termination of the case. Since the dismissal order was void, it could not give rise to double jeopardy. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy presupposes a valid indictment before a competent court and a valid termination. A dismissal order issued by a court without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion is void and does not result in jeopardy. Therefore, the reinstatement of the criminal case was proper. The CA decision was reversed, and the RTC Orders dated October 24, 2006 and February 26, 2007 were reinstated.