G.R. No. L-21638 July 26, 1966
ONG SIU, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. HON. ANTONIO P. PAREDES in his capacity as Judge of Branch II of the Municipal Court of Manila, CHARLIE FUNG and BENJAMIN LU, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners-appellants Ong Siu and Sy So Ty were charged with slight physical injuries (Crim. Case No. F-038479), and Francisco Ong and Lucio Ong were charged with light threats (Crim. Case No. F-038480) in the Municipal Court of Manila in August 1961. Respondents-appellees Charlie Fung and Benjamin Lu were accused in separate cases of serious and slight physical injuries (Crim. Cases Nos. F-038477 and F-038478). All four cases were jointly tried by Judge Andres Sta. Maria, who rendered a single decision on July 7, 1962. Before its promulgation, Judge Sta. Maria was appointed Judge of the Court of First Instance of Mindoro on July 9, 1962. His successor, Judge Milagros German, declared his unpromulgated decision null and void on August 14, 1962. After Judge German resigned, Acting Judge Lauro C. Marquez ordered the promulgation of Judge Sta. Maria’s decision for August 29, 1962. However, on August 23, 1962, respondent Judge Antonio P. Paredes was appointed to the vacant position. Judge Paredes also scheduled the promulgation, which was carried out for the appellants but not for Fung and Lu, who did not appear. Fung and Lu then secured a writ of certiorari and prohibition from the Court of First Instance of Manila (Judge Jose N. Leuterio), which ruled on November 5, 1962, that the decision could no longer be validly promulgated as Judge Sta. Maria was no longer a municipal judge. Upon this decision becoming final, Judge Paredes ordered a retrial of all four cases. The appellants then filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Judge Arsenio Santos) to restrain the retrial, claiming double jeopardy as the decision acquitting them had already been promulgated. The petition was dismissed on June 20, 1963, leading to this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the promulgation of the decision penned by Judge Sta. Maria, after he had ceased to be a judge of the Municipal Court, was valid such that a retrial of the cases would place the petitioners-appellants in double jeopardy.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition. The promulgation was invalid. Section 6 of Rule 116 (now Rule 120) of the Rules of Court, which allows promulgation in the judge’s absence, applies only to physical absence or being outside the province or city, provided the judge remains a judge of that court. It does not apply when the judge has ceased to hold office. Citing People v. Bonifacio So y Ortega and Lino Luna v. Rodriguez, the Court held that a judgment must be promulgated during the incumbency of the judge who signed it to be binding. Since Judge Sta. Maria was no longer a municipal judge at the time of the attempted promulgation, no valid judgment was entered. Consequently, the defense of double jeopardy cannot be invoked, as there was no valid acquittal, conviction, or termination of the case. The ordered retrial is merely a continuation of the original trial to enable the presiding judge to render a proper decision, akin to a proceeding for reconstitution of lost evidence, and does not constitute a second jeopardy.