People V Dumlao.docx

People v Dumlao Nature of the case: Double Jeopardy Doctrine: To raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. The first jeopardy attaches only (1) upon a valid indictment; (2) before a competent court; (3) after arraignment; (4) when a valid plea has been entered; and (5) when the defendant was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. A void decision of a court cannot be the basis of double jeopardy Petitioners: People of the Philippines Respondents: Hermenegildo Dumlao and Emilio La’o Facts: -

-

-

-

The respondents were charged with violating RA 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices act but was dismissed by the Sandiganbayan because of the “meritorious motion to quash/dismiss” filed by Dumlao. They were charged on the ground of the sale of a GSIS owned land between the GSIS, approved by the board of trustees wherein respondent Dumlao is a member, and respondent La’o. The stipulation of facts in the pre-trial order are as follows, o Dumlao was a member of the board of trustees of the GSIS. o Emilio La’o is a private person o GSIS is the owner of the property contested o The 5-storey building on said property was renovated o Only Dumlao was charged among those members who signed the minutes o Agreement was signed by Luis Javellana for and in behalf of GSIS, and Felipe Aldana, for and in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, and La’o as buyer. Dumlao filed a motion to quash/dismiss on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. He stated that the prosecution’s main argument was the alleged approval by the GSIS board of trustees of the agreement entered into by GSIS and respondent La’o. He contends that the board resolution was not approved by the GSIS board of trustees, since the signatures of the members were not in the minutes of the meeting, which means that there wasn’t a quorum, which also means that there can be no resolution approving the agreement. The Sandiganbayan issued the assailed decision here, dismissing the case against both respondents. Hence this petition for certiorari, which the respondent Dumlao alleges would cause double jeopardy in his part.

Issue: Fallo

Will the reversal of the Sandiganbayan decision and giving due course to the petition constitute double jeopardy? NOPE

-

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The resolution of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 16699 dated 14 July 2005 granting the Motion to Dismiss/Quash of respondent Hermenegildo C. Dumlao, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Sandiganbayan is forthwith DIRECTED to set the case for the reception of evidence for the prosecution. As to respondent Emilio G. Lao, on account of his demise, the case against him is DISMISSED.

Held: -

Notes

The court cannot agree with the contention of the respondent that giving due course to the petition of the Ombudsman will constitute double jeopardy. To raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: : (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. The first jeopardy attaches only (1) upon a valid indictment; (2) before a competent court; (3) after arraignment; (4) when a valid plea has been entered; and (5) when the defendant was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. The first four elements of the first requirement are present. The last, however, is not. The Sandiganbayan violated the prosecution’s right to due process. It was deprived of the opportunity to prosecute its case and to prove the accused’s guilt, and it was whimsically done. The RTC dismissed the case on a ground which was not invoked by the respondents, while the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence. The dismissal was clearly premature because the dismissal was made based solely on the manifestations made during the pre-trial. Also the dismissal was based on insufficient evidence, while the ground invoked by the respondent was that the facts charged did not constitute an offense. Since this dismissal is void, it cannot be the basis of double jeopardy. The case against La’o is dismissed on the sole reason that he is already dead. Death extinguishes civil and criminal liability.