Dimayacyac vs. Court of Appeals

11/8/2016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 430
VOL. 430, MAY 28, 2004
121
Dimayacyac vs. Court of Appeals

*
G.R. No. 136264. May 28, 2004.
ATTY. REYNALDO P. DIMAYACYAC, petitioner, vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. VICENTE Q. ROXAS,
IRENE AGBADACRUZ, SIXTO AGBADA CRUZ,
MERCEDES ARISTORENAS and ROMEO GOMEZ and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Constitutional Law; Criminal Law; Double Jeopardy;
Elements.With regard to the first issue, we are in accord with
the ruling of the CA that not all the elements for double jeopardy
exist in the case at bench. In People vs. TacAn, we enumerated
the elements that must exist for double jeopardy to be invoked, to
wit: Thus, apparently, 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. Legal jeopardy attaches only (a)
upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after
arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered; and (e) the
case was dismissed or otherwise
_______________
*
SECOND DIVISION.
122
122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

terminated without the express consent of the accused (People vs.

Ylagan, 58 Phil. 851).
Same; Same; Same; Criminal Procedure; A duplicitous
information is a valid indictmentsuch a defect may be waived
and the accused, because of such waiver, could be convicted of as
many offenses as those charged in the information and proved
during trial.Was the duplicitous information a valid
indictment? We answer in the affirmative. In People vs.
Bugayong, we ruled that when an appellant fails to file a motion
to quash within the time prescribed under Section 1, Rule 117 of
the Rules of Court, he is thus deemed to have waived the defect in
the Information. In People vs. Manalili we held that an accused,
who fails to object prior to arraignment to a duplicitous
information, may be found guilty of any or all of the crimes
alleged therein and duly proven during the trial, for the allegation
of the elements of such component crimes in the said information
has satisfied the constitutional guarantee that an accused be
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001583f9bb9c1ebf88249003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/12
11/8/2016
informed of the nature of the offense with which he or she is being

charged. Verily, a duplicitous information is valid since such
defect may be waived and the accused, because of such waiver,
could be convicted of as many offenses as those charged in the
information and proved during trial.
Same; Same; Same; Where the dismissal of a previous
criminal case against the accused was by reason of his motion for
the quashal of the information, he is thus deemed to have expressly
given his consent to his dismissal.The validity of the
information having been established, we go on to examine
whether the other requisites for double jeopardy to attach are
present. In the present case, although there was a valid
indictment before a competent court and petitioner, as the
accused, had already been arraigned therein, entering a valid plea
of not guilty, the last requisite that the case was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent, is not present.
It should be noted that the termination of Criminal Case No. Q
9118037 was upon motion of petitioner who, on April 1, 1991,
filed with the court an Urgent Motion to Quash which was
granted by Resolution dated August 23, 1991. In Sta. Rita vs.
Court of Appeals, we held that the reinstatement of criminal cases
against the accused did not violate his right against double
jeopardy since the dismissal of the information by the trial court
had been effected at his own instance when the accused filed a
motion to dismiss on the grounds that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense and that the RTC had no jurisdiction over
the case. In this case, considering that since the dismissal of the
previous criminal case against petitioner was by reason of his
motion for the quashal of the information, petitioner is thus
deemed to have expressly given his consent to such dismissal.
There could then be no double jeopardy in this case since one of
the requisites therefore, i.e., that the dismissal be without
accuseds express consent, is not present.
123
VOL. 430, MAY 28, 2004
123
Same; Speedy Disposition of Cases; The right to speedy

disposition of cases, like the right to a speedy trial, is deemed
violated only when the proceedings is attended by vexatious,
capricious, and oppressive delays.We emphasize our ruling in
TyDazo vs. Sandiganbayan where we held that: The right to a
speedy disposition of cases, like the right to a speedy trial, is
deemed violated only when the proceedings is attended by
vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified
postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when
without cause or unjustifiable motive, a long period of time is
allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. In the
determination of whether or not that right has been violated, the
factors that may be considered and balanced are: the length of the
delay, the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert
such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay.
A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved, therefore,
would not be sufficient. In the application of the constitutional
guarantee of the right to speedy disposition of cases, particular
regard must also be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar
to each case.
Same; Same; The Court is not convinced that the filing of the
informations after two years from the time the original
2/12
11/8/2016
information was quashed was an unreasonable delay.What the

records clearly show is that petitioner never asserted his right to
a speedy disposition of his case. The only ground he raised in
assailing the subsequent filing of the two informations is that he
will be subjected to double jeopardy. It was only the OSG that
brought to light the issue on petitioners right to a speedy
disposition of his case, and only when the case was brought to the
appellate court on certiorari. Even in this petition before us,
petitioner did not raise the issue of his right to a speedy
disposition of his case. Again, it was only the OSG that presented
such issue to us in the Brief for the State which was only then
adopted by petitioner through a Manifestation dated August 3,
1999. We are not convinced that the filing of the informations
against petitioner after two years was an unreasonable delay.
Petitioner himself did not really believe that there was any
violation of his right to a speedy disposition of the case against
him.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Dimayacyac & Dimayacyac Law Firm for petitioners.
Anecio R. Guades for respondent Cruz.
Ioannes J. Infante for respondents R. Gomez and M.
Aristorenas.
124
124

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ, J.:
Before us1 is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the
Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA for brevity) dated
November 13, 1998 in CAG.R. SP No. 43884, denying
Atty. Reynaldo P. Dimayacyacs petition for certiorari and
ruling that the Regional Trial Court (Branch 227) of
Quezon City (RTC for brevity) was correct in denying
petitioners motion to quash the information charging
petitioner with falsification of public documents, docketed
as Criminal Case No. Q9349988.
The antecedent facts as borne out by the records of the
case are accurately narrated in the CA Decision dated
November 13, 1998, thus:
An information for falsification of public documents docketed as
Criminal Case No. Q9118037 at the RTC of Quezon City was
filed against petitioner along with some others. That information
reads:
The
undersigned
Assistant
City
Prosecutor
accuses
LOURDES
ANGELES, ESTRELLA MAPA, ATTY. PONCIANO R. GUPIT, and

ATTY. REYNALDO P. DIMAYACYAC of the crime of FALSIFICATION
OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT (under Article 172, first and last paragraph in
relation to Article 171 paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code),
committed as follows:
That on or about the 5th day of 1986, in Quezon City, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed
accused, all private individuals, conspiring together, confederating with
and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously commit the act of falsification of public
3/12
11/8/2016
documents, by then and there falsifying or causing the falsification of the

following documents, to wit:
(a) Certification dated March 10, 1986 purportedly signed by a
certain Fernando Dizon, Record Management Analyst of the
Bureau of Land, Central Office, Manila;
(b) Report dated May 5, 1986 purportedly signed by a certain Jose
Mariano, Chief Record Management Division of Bureau of Land,
Central Office, Manila; and
(c) Sales Certificate and Deed of Assignment allegedly issued by the
Bureau of Land in favor of Lourdes Angeles; that despite
_______________
1
Penned by then Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales (now Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Jainal Rasul
and Bernardo Abesamis.
125
VOL. 430, MAY 28, 2004
125

the fact that said accused knew all the time that said documents are fake
and spurious used the same in the Petition for Reconstitution of Records
of the technical description of Lots Nos. 755, 777, 778 and 783 of the
Piedad Estate covered by TCT No. 14, Decree No. 667, GLRO Record No.
5975 and the issuance of Title thereto filed by Estrella Mapa over and
involving the aforesaid lots in Land Registration Case docketed as LRC
Case No. 3369 (86) before Branch 99, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City
and that by virtue of said falsification and the use of the same as
evidence in Court Honorable Presiding Judge Godofredo Asuncion issued
an order dated June 30, 1986 granting said petition, and pursuant
thereto the Register of Deeds of Quezon City issued Transfer Certificates
of Titles Nos. 348156, 348291 and 348292 in the name of Estrella Mapa
thereby embracing and/or encroaching the portions of the properties
belonging to Romeo D. Gomez, Sixto Agbada, Irene AgbadaCruz and
Mercedes Aristorenas whose properties were embraced and included in
the said Transfer Certificates of Titles and in such amount as may be
awarded under the provisions of the Civil Code.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Before his arraignment, petitioner moved to quash the

information on two (2) grounds. First, that the officer who filed
the information had no legal authority to do so, and second, that
more than one offense was charged in the information.
Pending resolution of the motion to quash, petitioner was
arraigned.
By Order of August 23, 1991, Judge Benigno T. Dayaw of
Branch 80 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City to whose
sala Criminal Case No. Q9118037 was raffled, holding that the
grant or denial of Motion to Dismiss whether the accused is
arraigned or not is discretionary on the part of the Court, it
citing People vs. IAC, L6693941, January 10, 1987, granted the
petitioners motion to quash upon the second ground. Accordingly,
the information was quashed.
More than two (2) years after the quashal of the information in
Criminal Case No. Q9118037 or on October 19, 1993, the
Quezon City Prosecutor filed against the same accused including
petitioner two (2) informations for falsification of public
documents docketed at the Quezon City RTC as Criminal Case
Nos. Q9349988 and 49989. The Informations arose from the
4/12
11/8/2016
questioned acts of falsification subject of the earlier quashed

information in Criminal Case No. Q9118037.
Petitioner later filed with Branch 103 of the RTC of Quezon
City to which the informations were raffled a motion for the
quashal thereof on the ground of double jeopardy, citing Section
3(h) of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court.
126
126

Petitioner argued at the court a quo that he would be placed in

double jeopardy as he was indicted before for the same offenses
and the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
express consent.
By the assailed Order of December 18, 1996, public respondent,
Judge Vicente Q. Roxas of Branch 227 of the RTC of Quezon City
to which the two (2) informations against petitioner, et al, were
eventually lodged, held that the information in Criminal Case No.
Q9349988 involved a different document as that involved in
Criminal Case No. Q9118037 which had already been quashed.
Resolution of the motion to quash the information in Criminal
Case No. Q9349989 was stayed pending the submission by
petitioner of the documents required by the court a quo. Public
respondent thus denied the motion to quash the information in
Criminal Case No. Q9349988 and ordered petitioners
arraignment, he holding that said case did not place petitioner in
2
double jeopardy.
Herein petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before

the CA which denied his petition stating in its Decision
that since the Information in Criminal Case No. Q91
18037, on petitioners motion, was quashed on the ground
that more than one offense was charged pursuant
to Sec. 3
3
(e) of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court, he is not
placed in double jeopardy by the filing of another
Information for an offense included in the charge subject
of
4
the Information in Criminal Case No. Q9118037.
Hence, herein petition for review on certiorari assigning
the following errors of the CA, to wit:
I. That the Honorable Court of Appeals ERRED in
disregarding the legal doctrine that THERE IS
DOUBLE JEOPARDY, in the case now pending
before Respondent Judge Vicente Q. Roxas;
II. That the Honorable Court of Appeals ERRED in not
adhering to the decisions of this Honorable
Supreme Court, as well as to applicable
jurisprudence on the matter;
III. That the Honorable Court of Appeals ERRED in not
taking into account that based on the
Manifestation and Motion (To Grant Petition) In
Lieu of Comment filed by the Office of the Solicitor
General, the OR
_______________
2
Rollo, pp. 130133.
Sec. 3. (e) That more than one offense is charged except in those cases
in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offenses.

4
Rollo, p. 136.
5/12
11/8/2016
127
VOL. 430, MAY 28, 2004
127
DER of dismissal of Honorable Judge Benigno T. Dayaw in

Criminal Case No. Q9118037 on August 23, 1991 has
become final and executory; and
IV. That the Honorable Respondent Court of Appeals
ERRED in concluding that an ORDER sustaining
the motion to quash is not a bar to another
prosecution
for the same offense, as it has no legal
5
basis.
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) contends that petitioner, by filing the motion to
quash and refusing to withdraw it after he was arraigned,
is deemed to have waived his right against double jeopardy,
as his motion to quash constituted his express consent for
the dismissal of the information. However, the OSG
advances the view that the criminal case against herein
petitioner may be dismissed for the inordinate delay in the
conduct of preliminary investigation for the purpose of
filing the proper information, which is a violation of the
accuseds constitutional right to due process of law and to
speedy disposition of cases.
Private respondent complainant Irene AgbadaCruz, in
turn, submits that the Court of Appeals committed no
error since the dismissal or quashal of an information is
not a bar to another prosecution except when the motion to
quash is based on the ground that (1) the criminal action or
liability has been extinguished or that (2) the accused has
previously been convicted or in jeopardy of being convicted
or acquitted of the offense charged, pursuant to Section 6 in
relation to Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Section 6. Order sustaining the motion to quash not a bar to
another prosecution; exception.An order sustaining the motion
to quash is not a bar to another prosecution for the same offense
unless the motion was based on the grounds specified in Section 3,
subsections (f) and (h) of this Rule.
Section 3. Grounds.The accused may move to quash the
complaint or information on any of the following grounds:
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
offense charged or the person of the accused;
(c) That the officer who filed the information had no
authority to do so;
_______________
5
Rollo, pp. 2526.

128
128

6/12
11/8/2016
(d) That it does not conform substantially to the

prescribed form;
(e) That more than one offense is charged except in
those cases in which existing laws prescribe a single
punishment for various offenses;
(f) That the criminal action or liability has been
extinguished;
(g) That it contains averments which, if true, would
constitute a legal excuse or justification; and
(h) That the accused has been previously convicted or in
jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the
offense charged. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, private respondent Cruz argues that since the
previous information was quashed on the ground of
duplicity of offenses charged, the subsequent filing of a
proper information is, therefore, not barred.
In
their
Memorandum,
private
respondents
complainants Romeo Gomez and Mercedes Aristorenas
contend that (1) jeopardy does not attach where the
dismissal of the information was effected at the instance of
the accused; and (2) there was no violation of petitioners
right to a speedy disposition of his case since he never
raised this issue in the trial court nor in the appellate
court, hence, his silence should be interpreted as a waiver
of said right to a speedy trial.
The issues boil down to (1) whether or not the
prosecution of petitioner under the Information docketed as
Criminal Case No. Q9349988 would constitute double
jeopardy, considering that when the Information in
Criminal Case No. Q9118037 was previously quashed, he
had already been arraigned, and (2) whether or not
petitioners constitutional right to a speedy disposition of
his case has been violated.
With regard to the first issue, we are in accord with the
ruling of the CA that not all the elements for double6
jeopardy exist in the case at bench. In People vs. TacAn,
we enumerated the elements that must exist for double
jeopardy to be invoked, to wit:
_______________
6
398 SCRA 373, 380 (2003), citing Saldana vs. Court of Appeals, 190
SCRA 396 (1990).

129
VOL. 430, MAY 28, 2004
129

Thus, apparently, 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.
Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment, (b)
before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea
having been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without the express consent of the accused (People vs.
Ylagan, 58 Phil. 851).
7/12
11/8/2016
Was the duplicitous information a valid indictment?7 We

answer in the affirmative. In People vs. Bugayong, we
ruled that when an appellant fails to file a motion to quash
within the time prescribed under Section 1, Rule 117 of the
Rules of Court, he is thus deemed to have waived
the defect
8
in the Information. In People vs. Manalili we held that an
accused, who fails to object prior to arraignment to a
duplicitous information, may be found guilty of any or all of
the crimes alleged therein and duly proven during the trial,
for the allegation of the elements of such component crimes
in the said information has satisfied the constitutional
guarantee that an accused be informed of the nature of the
offense with which he or she is being charged. Verily, a
duplicitous information is valid since such defect may be
waived and the accused, because of such waiver, could be
convicted of as many offenses as those charged in the
information and proved during trial.
The validity of the information having been established,
we go on to examine whether the other requisites for
double jeopardy to attach are present. In the present case,
although there was a valid indictment before a competent
court and petitioner, as the accused, had already been
arraigned therein, entering a valid plea of not guilty, the
last requisite that the case was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent, is not present.
It should be noted that the termination of Criminal Case
No. Q9118037 was upon motion of petitioner who, on
April 1, 1991, filed with the court an Urgent Motion to
Quash which was granted by Resolution dated August 23,
1991. In Sta. Rita vs. Court of Ap
_______________
299 SCRA 528 (1998), citing People vs. Manalili, G.R. No. 121671,
Aug. 14, 1998, 294 SCRA 220; People vs. Conte, 247 SCRA 583 (1995);
People vs. Dulay, 217 SCRA 132 (1993); etc.
8
294 SCRA 220, 226 (1998).

130
130

9
peals, we held that the reinstatement of criminal cases

against the accused did not violate his right against double
jeopardy since the dismissal of the information by the trial
court had been effected at his own instance when the
accused filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the
facts charged do not constitute an offense and that the RTC
had no jurisdiction over the case. In this case, considering
that since the dismissal of the previous criminal case
against petitioner was by reason of his motion for the
quashal of the information, petitioner is thus deemed to
have expressly given his consent to such dismissal. There
could then be no double jeopardy in this case since one of
the requisites therefore, i.e., that the dismissal be without
accuseds express consent, is not present.
As to whether the subsequent filing of the two
informations docketed as Q9349988 and Q9349989
constitutes a violation of petitioners
constitutional right to
10
a speedy disposition of cases, we rule in the negative. We
are not convinced by the OSGs assertion that the cases of
11
Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan
or Angchangco,
Jr.
vs.
8/12
11/8/2016

11
Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan

or Angchangco, Jr. vs.
12
Ombudsman, are applicable to the case before us. We see
differently. There is no factual similarity between this case
before us and the cases of Tatad and Angchangco.
In the Tatad case, there was a hiatus in the proceedings
between the termination of the proceedings before the
investigating fiscal on October 25, 1982 and its resolution
on April 17, 1985. The Court found that political
motivations played a vital role
in activating and propelling
13
the prosecutorial process
against then Secretary
Francisco S. Tatad. In the Angchangco case, the criminal
complaints remained pending in the Office of the
Ombudsman for more than six years despite the
respondents numerous motions for early resolution and the
respondent, who had been retired, was being unreasonably
deprived of the fruits of his retirement because of the still
unresolved criminal complaints against him. In both cases,
we ruled that the period of time that elapsed for the
resolution of the cases against the petitioners therein was
deemed a
_______________
9
247 SCRA 484 (1995).
10
Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
states that [a]ll persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasijudicial, or administrative bodies.
11
159 SCRA 70 (1988).
12
268 SCRA 301 (1997).
13
Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, 159 SCRA 70, 81 (1988).

131
VOL. 430, MAY 28, 2004
131
violation of the accuseds right to a speedy disposition of

cases against them.
In the present case, no proof was presented to show any
persecution of the accused, political or otherwise, unlike in
the Tatad case. There is no showing that petitioner was
made to endure any vexatious process during the twoyear
period before the filing of the proper informations, unlike in
the Angchangco case where petitioner therein was deprived
of his retirement benefits for an unreasonably long time.
Thus, the circumstances present in the Tatad and
Angchangco cases justifying the radical relief granted by
us in said cases are not existent in the present case.
We
emphasize
our
ruling
in
TyDazo
vs.
14
Sandiganbayan where we held that:
The right to a speedy disposition of cases, like the right to a
speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceedings is
attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when
unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured,
or when without cause or unjustifiable motive, a long period of
time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.
In the determination of whether or not that right has been
violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are: the
length of the delay, the reasons for such delay, the assertion or
failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice
caused by the delay.
9/12
11/8/2016
A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved, therefore,

would not be sufficient. In the application of the constitutional
guarantee of the right to speedy disposition of cases, particular
regard must also be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar
to each case. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, we shall examine how such aforementioned factors

affected herein petitioners right.
As to the length of delay, it is established that the
prosecution did not take any action on petitioners case for
two years. From the time that Criminal Case No. Q91
18037 was dismissed on August 23, 1991, the prosecution
failed to effect the very simple remedy of filing two
separate informations against petitioner until October of
1993. Indeed, there was a delay in the refiling of the proper
infor
_______________
14
424 Phil. 945, 950951; 374 SCRA 200, 203 (2002), citing Binay vs.
Sandiganbayan, 316 SCRA 65 (1999); Gonzales vs. Sandiganbayan, 199

SCRA 298 (1991); and Blanco vs. Sandiganbayan, 346 SCRA 108 (2000).
132
132

mations. However, the prosecution was never given the

opportunity to explain the circumstances that may have
caused such delay precisely because petitioner never raised
the issue of the length of time it took the prosecution to
revive the case. There is nothing on record to show what
happened during the twoyear lull before the filing of the
proper informations. Hence, it could not be ascertained
that peculiar situations existed to prove that the delay was
vexatious, capricious and oppressive, and therefore, a
violation of petitioners constitutional right to speedy
disposition of cases.
What the records clearly show is that petitioner never
asserted his right to a speedy disposition of his case. The
only ground he raised in assailing the subsequent filing of
the two informations is that he will be subjected to double
jeopardy. It was only the OSG that brought to light the
issue on petitioners right to a speedy disposition of his
case, and only when the case was brought to the appellate
court on certiorari. Even in this petition before us,
petitioner did not raise the issue of his right to a speedy
disposition of his case. Again, it was only the OSG that
presented such issue to us in the Brief for the State which
was only then adopted by petitioner through a
Manifestation dated August 3, 1999. We are not convinced
that the filing of the informations against petitioner after
two years was an unreasonable delay. Petitioner himself
did not really believe that there was any violation of his
right to a speedy disposition of the case against him.
The case which is more in point with15the present one
before us is Dela Pea vs. Sandiganbayan where we ruled
that petitioner therein, for failing to assert their right to a
speedy disposition of their cases, was deemed to have
waived such right and thus, not entitled to the radical
relief granted by the Court in the cases of Tatad and
Angchangco. The factual circumstances surrounding herein
10/12
11/8/2016
petitioners case do not demonstrate that there was any

violation of petitioners right to a speedy disposition of his
case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack
of merit. The temporary restraining order issued pursuant
to our Resolution dated January 17, 2000 is hereby
LIFTED and the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
(Branch 227) is hereby ORDERED to proceed
_______________
15
360 SCRA 478 (2001) citing Alvizo vs. Sandiganbayan, 220 SCRA 55,
63 (1993); Dansal vs. Fernandez, 327 SCRA 145, 153 (2000); Blanco vs.
Sandiganbayan, 346 SCRA 108 (2000).
133
VOL. 430, MAY 28, 2004
133
with dispatch with petitioners arraignment in Criminal

Case No. Q9349988.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing (Actg. Chairman), Callejo, Sr. and
Tinga, JJ., concur.
Puno (Chairman), J., On Official Leave.
Petition denied.
Notes.Where the ground of double jeopardy was not
raised in the motion to quash before the trial court, then it
is unpardonably absurd to claim that its nonapplication
would constitute grave abuse of discretion. (Ilagan vs.
Court of Appeals, 239 SCRA 575 [1994])
The raison detre for the requirement of the express
consent of the accused to a provisional dismissal of a
criminal case is to bar him from subsequently asserting
that the revival of the criminal case will place him in
double jeopardy for the same offense or for an offense
necessarily included therein. (People vs. Lacson, 400 SCRA
267 [2003])
An amendment of an Information for Malversation of
Public Funds to make it conform to what the evidence
showed as the total amount of money undeposited and
unaccounted for by the accused after the requisite audit
examination was further conducted is only a matter of form
and not in substance, to which no double jeopardy can be
said to have attached. (People vs. Hipol, 407 SCRA 179
[2003])
o0o
134
Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
11/12
11/8/2016
12/12

Dimayacyac vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dimayacyac vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dimayacyac vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/8/2016

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 430

VOL. 430, MAY 28, 2004