G.R. No. L-42485 July 31, 1978
Bonifacio L. Solis, Cenon C. Solis, and Delfin Solis, petitioners, vs. People of the Philippines, and Honorable Jaime R. Agloro, in his capacity as Judge, Court of First Instance of Batangas, Branch II, respondents.

FACTS

This petition stems from a revived murder case. An information was filed against petitioners in 1971. After repeated postponements due to absent prosecution witnesses, the case was provisionally dismissed in 1972 with the express consent of the petitioners, who were informed of the possibility of revival. In 1974, the prosecution moved to revive the case. Petitioners opposed, claiming double jeopardy. This Court, in Solis v. Agloro (1975), dismissed their certiorari petition, ruling that a provisional dismissal with the accused’s consent does not bar revival. The trial court then set the case for hearing.
Petitioners, still seeking to avoid trial, filed a motion to quash, arguing that the revival required a new information and a new preliminary investigation. They contended that proceeding without these violated procedural due process and constituted a jurisdictional error by the respondent judge. The trial court denied the motion, prompting this second petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the revival of the provisionally dismissed criminal case requires a new information and a new preliminary investigation to satisfy due process and confer jurisdiction upon the trial court.

RULING

The petition is devoid of merit. First, the claim of denial of due process for lack of a new preliminary investigation is untenable. Petitioners were already afforded a preliminary investigation in the municipal court prior to the original filing of the information. The absence of a new investigation does not impair the validity of the information or affect the court’s jurisdiction, as established in People v. Casiano. Furthermore, by pleading to the original information without earlier raising this issue, petitioners are deemed to have waived any right to a preliminary investigation. Their belated procedural objection is a transparent dilatory tactic.
Second, and decisively, the petition is barred by the doctrine of the law of the case. This Court’s final 1975 decision in Solis v. Agloro definitively settled the propriety and validity of reviving the criminal case. That ruling constitutes the law of this case and is binding on all subsequent stages of the same litigation. As held in People v. Olarte, a final ruling, even if arguably erroneous, can no longer be disturbed. Petitioners’ attempt to re-litigate the same matter under a different legal theory is an impermissible collateral attack on a final judgment. To entertain it would undermine judicial finality. The trial court correctly denied the motion to quash and must proceed with the trial. The petition is dismissed.