G.R. No. L-27935 August 16, 1985
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. JUAN L. BOCAR, Presiding Judge of Branch XVI, Court of First Instance of Manila, and CESAR URBINO, JOSE GIGANTE and SERAPION CLAUDIO, respondents.

FACTS

An information for theft was filed against respondents Cesar Urbino, Jose Gigante, and Serapion Claudio for allegedly taking six pieces of dao veneer logs valued at P7,104.62 from complainant Juan B. Bañez, Jr. The accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. Subsequently, during a hearing on July 7, 1967, the respondent judge conducted a “summary investigation,” directing unsworn questions to both the complainant and the accused. Based solely on this informal inquiry, the judge dismissed the criminal case, stating it was more civil than criminal because both parties claimed ownership of the logs and the accused allegedly acted in good faith without intent to steal.
The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration, which the respondent judge denied. The People of the Philippines then filed this special civil action for certiorari, arguing that the dismissal constituted grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal case for theft based on a summary investigation without giving the prosecution a full opportunity to present its evidence.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The dismissal order was issued arbitrarily and capriciously, violating the prosecution’s right to due process. After the accused pleaded not guilty, the case was set for trial on the merits. The so-called “summary investigation” was irregular; the parties were not placed under oath, and no formal evidence was entered into the record. The prosecution was effectively denied its day in court and a fair opportunity to present its case in accordance with the Rules of Court.
This denial of due process ousted the court of its jurisdiction. Consequently, the dismissal order is null and void. A void judgment cannot constitute a proper basis for a claim of double jeopardy. For double jeopardy to attach, the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated by a competent court. Here, the court was not competent at the time of dismissal due to the jurisdictional flaw. The dismissal, being invalid, did not terminate the proceedings. Therefore, remanding the case for trial is merely a continuation of the first jeopardy, not a second one. The order of dismissal was set aside, and Criminal Case No. 85798 was ordered remanded to the trial court for proper proceedings.