G.R. No. L-7075 November 18, 1954
SULPICIO V. CEA, ETC., ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. CIRIACO M. CINCO, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Respondents, with others, were charged with malversation in four criminal cases. After a joint hearing, Judge Jose B. Rodriguez rendered a decision on June 28, 1951, acquitting all accused except Treasurer Francisco Martinez, who was found guilty. On July 3, 1951, the clerk of court made an entry of the decision in the criminal docket. The clerk issued a notice for Martinez to appear for the reading of the sentence; on July 14, 1951, only the dispositive part was read to him as he waived the full reading, and he and the fiscal received copies. No appearance was required for the acquitted respondents, but copies of the decision were served on each of them; counsel for two respondents received a copy on July 20, 1951. The prosecution filed motions for reconsideration. Subsequently, respondents received notice that the reading of a new decision by Judge Sulpicio V. Cea in the same cases was scheduled. Respondents filed a manifestation and motion alleging Judge Cea had no jurisdiction, which was overruled. Respondents then filed a petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-5389), which was dismissed, with the Court stating their remedy was appeal if convicted. Judge Cea then set the reading of his new decision. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals seeking to nullify Judge Cea’s orders and restrain him from rendering a new decision. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, declaring Judge Cea’s orders null and void and restraining him from promulgating a new decision. Petitioners (Judge Cea, Fiscal Jimenez, and the People) appealed by certiorari to the Supreme Court. It is undisputed that Judge Cea’s new decision is one of conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the decision of acquittal rendered by Judge Rodriguez had been duly promulgated, thereby precluding Judge Cea from rendering and promulgating a new decision of conviction on the grounds of double jeopardy.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The judgment of acquittal rendered by Judge Rodriguez had been validly promulgated. Promulgation under Section 6 of Rule 116 of the Rules of Court requires the personal presence of the defendant only in case of conviction for a grave or less grave offense. Since the respondents were acquitted, their personal presence was not necessary for promulgation. Promulgation was effected when the clerk of court entered the judgment in the criminal docket and when copies of the decision were served upon the respondents. Consequently, the acquittal had become final. Therefore, Judge Cea had no authority to render a new decision of conviction, as doing so would violate the rule against double jeopardy. The Court also held that its prior resolution in G.R. No. L-5389, dismissing a petition for prohibition on the ground that the remedy was appeal if convicted, did not bar the subsequent certiorari petition, as that resolution did not exclude other adequate remedies when a conviction became certain.