G.R. No. L-33116 August 31, 1971
WILSON SERINO, petitioner, vs. HON. MARIANO A. ZOSA, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Wilson Serino was charged with murder. During the scheduled hearing on December 9, 1970, both the prosecution and defense announced readiness. The court, however, stated it would first finish a civil case before proceeding. The prosecution lawyers, the Assistant Fiscal and the private prosecutor, left the courtroom, expecting the bailiff to notify them when the criminal case would be called. The Fiscal went to another sala to handle a different case, while the private prosecutor went to interview a witness. When the court later called the criminal case, neither prosecutor was present. Respondent Judge then issued an order dismissing the case for the prosecution’s failure to appear and cancelling the accused’s bail bond.
That same afternoon, the prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration, explaining their absence and attaching affidavits from the bailiff and a clerk. The bailiff affirmed he was instructed only to look for the Fiscal, whom he found in another courtroom, and did not seek out the private prosecutor. The clerk confirmed the private prosecutor was in a nearby office but was not asked about him. On December 14, 1970, respondent Judge granted the motion “in the interest of justice,” set aside the dismissal, and reinstated the case.

ISSUE

Whether the reinstatement of the criminal case after its dismissal for non-appearance of the prosecution violates the petitioner’s constitutional right against double jeopardy.

RULING

No, the reinstatement does not constitute double jeopardy. The Supreme Court held that the initial order of dismissal was null and void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion and in violation of due process. The legal logic is that for a dismissal to operate as an acquittal and bar a second jeopardy, it must be a valid dismissal. A dismissal that is capricious and denies the State a fair opportunity to prosecute is issued without due process. Here, the prosecution had validly announced readiness and their temporary absence was based on a reasonable expectation of being notified, given the court’s own sequence of proceedings. The dismissal was precipitate, as there was no showing of the accused’s right to a speedy trial being violated or of the prosecution’s lack of interest to prosecute. The case is distinguishable from precedents where dismissals were grounded on the prosecution’s unjustified unreadiness after postponements, which were deemed acquittals. Since the dismissal was invalid for lack of due process, it did not terminate the case in a manner that would trigger double jeopardy. Therefore, the respondent Judge correctly recalled his void order and reinstated the case. The petition for certiorari was denied.