G.R. No. 81861 and G.R. No. 83114, September 8, 1989
BERNABE QUE and AMELIA QUE, spouses, petitioners, vs. HON. RODRIGO V. COSICO, et al., respondents. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner-appellant, vs. PAZ L. MARTELINO AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

The accused, including spouses Bernabe and Amelia Que and Paz L. Martelino, were charged with estafa through falsification of commercial documents. During the hearing on November 10, 1986, defense counsel Atty. Rodriguez Dadivas orally moved for the inhibition of the presiding judge, Judge Enrique Suplico, citing pending administrative charges filed against him. The private prosecutor joined the motion and insisted on a ruling before proceeding. Despite the prosecution’s readiness to present its principal witness, Judge Suplico, after ordering the prosecution to present evidence three times to no avail, dismissed the case on the ground of the accused’s right to a speedy trial, invoked by other defense counsel. The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration.
After a judicial reorganization, the case was re-raffled to Judge Rodrigo Cosico. Judge Cosico granted the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration, reinstated the case, and ordered its reopening. The defense moved for reconsideration, arguing that reinstatement would place the accused in double jeopardy, but Judge Cosico denied the motion. The accused then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via certiorari, while the People separately appealed the Court of Appeals’ decision that upheld the dismissal.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the reinstatement of the criminal case by Judge Cosico placed the accused in double jeopardy.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that double jeopardy did not attach. For double jeopardy to exist, three requisites must concur: a valid information, a court of competent jurisdiction, and a valid acquittal or conviction, or the dismissal of the case without the express consent of the accused. The Court found that the dismissal by Judge Suplico was invalid. The right to a speedy trial was invoked by defense counsel who had themselves requested previous postponements, constituting a waiver of that right. The prosecution was not dilatory; its witness was present and ready to testify on November 10, 1986. The prosecution’s insistence on a ruling for inhibition was not unreasonable, as it pertained to the judge’s impartiality. Judge Suplico’s refusal to rule and his subsequent abrupt dismissal, under the circumstances, indicated bias and prejudice, rendering the dismissal capricious and oppressive. An invalid dismissal, such as one that is precipitate and without legal basis, does not bar the revival of the criminal action. Therefore, Judge Cosico correctly reinstated the case. The petitions were resolved accordingly: G.R. No. 81861 was dismissed, and in G.R. No. 83114, the orders of Judge Cosico were affirmed.