G.R. No. L-27257 August 31, 1971
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ARTEMIO M. AGONCILLO, et al., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The Republic filed a complaint for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379 against Artemio M. Agoncillo, a Customs official, and members of his family. The State alleged that properties registered in the names of his co-defendants were unlawfully acquired by Agoncillo during his public service and should be forfeited in favor of the government. The defendants, in their answer, raised the defense of double jeopardy. They contended that a prior forfeiture case (Civil Case No. 44686) involving the same properties and parties had already been filed and was dismissed. They argued that since RA 1379 proceedings are penal in nature, the dismissal of the first case barred a second prosecution for the same offense.
The lower court sustained the defense of double jeopardy and dismissed the case. It ruled that the defendants had been previously charged under a valid complaint in a court of competent jurisdiction, to which they had pleaded, and that the prior case was dismissed without their express consent. The Republic appealed, contending that the lower court erred in applying the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of the prior forfeiture case (Civil Case No. 44686) bars the institution of the present forfeiture proceedings under Republic Act No. 1379 on the ground of double jeopardy.

RULING

No, the defense of double jeopardy is not applicable. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. The Court reaffirmed that forfeiture proceedings under RA 1379 are criminal or penal in character, thus entitling the defendants to constitutional protections such as the right against double jeopardy. However, for double jeopardy to attach, the dismissal of the first case must be one that operates as an adjudication on the merits or is otherwise final and terminates the case.
Crucially, the record revealed that the prior case (Civil Case No. 44686) was dismissed “without prejudice.” This fact was alleged in the complaint in the present case and was expressly admitted by the defendants in their respective answers. A dismissal “without prejudice” does not bar the refiling of the action, as it is not a termination of the case on the merits that would place the defendant in jeopardy. Therefore, the lower court erred in concluding that the dismissal of the first case barred the present suit. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy is designed to prevent a second prosecution after an acquittal or conviction, or after a dismissal that is tantamount to either, not after a provisional dismissal that explicitly permits renewal of the action. The case was remanded for further proceedings.