Can't share this digest on Facebook? Here's why.
G.R. No. 127777 – 374 Phil. 474 – 316 SCRA 118 – Remedial Law – Criminal Procedure – Double Jeopardy – Dismissal of Case Without Accused’s Consent
In 1991, a special prosecutor filed two identical informations for violation of the tax code against Petronila Tupaz. One information was filed with QC-RTC Branch 86 (Judge Antonio Solano) while the other was filed with QC-RTC Branch 105 (Judge Benedicto Ulep).
In May 1996, the prosecutor withdrew the Information from Branch 105 as he sought to consolidate the same with the Information filed with Branch 86. Judge Ulep then dismissed the Br. 105 case against Tupaz. A few days later, the prosecutor sought the reinstatement of the Br. 105 case on the ground that his withdrawal of the information was due to a palpable mistake. Judge Ulep granted the motion for reinstatement.
ISSUE: Is there double jeopardy in this case?
HELD: Yes. In this case, the consent of Tupaz was not obtained prior to the dismissal of the case. An accused is placed in double jeopardy if s/he is again tried for an offense for which s/he has been convicted, acquitted or in another manner in which the indictment against him/her was dismissed without his/her consent. In the instant case, there was a valid complaint filed against Tupaz to which she pleaded not guilty. The court dismissed the case at the instance of the prosecution, without asking for her consent. This consent cannot be implied or presumed. Such consent must be expressed as to have no doubt as to the accused’s conformity. As her consent was not expressly given, the dismissal of the case must be regarded as final and with prejudice to the re-filing of the case. Consequently, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in reinstating the information against Tupaz in violation of her constitutionally protected right against double jeopardy.
Read another version of this digest (Taxation – Prescription of Offenses Against the Tax Code)
