PEOPLE v.

JUGUETA
FACTS:
1. There were 2 informations. (1) Jugueta alone was charged with double murder, (2)
Jugueta, along with Estores and San Miguel were charged with Multiple attempted
murder.
2. San Miguel, moved for reinvestigation of the case against them
a. Presented one Fajarillo who submitted his sworn statement:
i. on June 6, 2002, he saw Jugueta with a certain "Hapon" and Gilbert
Estores at the crime scene, but it was only Jugueta who was carrying a
firearm while the other two had no participation in the shooting incident.
Fajarillo further stated that Roger San Miguel was not present at the
crime scene.
3. Based on the sworn statement of Fajarillo, the Provincial Prosecutor found no prima
facie case against Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel.
4. Thus, upon motion of theprosecution, the case for Attempted Murder against Gilbert
Estores and Roger San Miguel was dismissed, and trial proceeded only as to Jugueta
(background sa nahitabo nga murder: Kani silang tulo, niadto ni sa balay ni Norberto. Kani si
Norberto, brother in law ni ni Jugueta. Nag file man gud og case si Norberto against kang
Jugueta kay gi molest daw iyang mga anak. Mao guro to naglagot si Jugueta, niadto sa ilang
balay gabiing dako kuyog si Estores og si San Miguel, gi pamusil ang family ni Norberto while
natulog, nya naigo ang duha ka anak nga bayi, namatay ang duha ☹ )

Subsequently, na convict si Jugueta, and based on evidence, na reveal nga apil jud si San Miguel
og si Estores sa pagpamusil. So erroneous to ang pag dismiss sa info by the prosec against them
5. Norberto had been very straightforward and unwavering in his identification of Estores
and San Miguel as the two other people who fired the gunshots at his family.
6. More significantly, as noted by the prosecutor, the testimonies of Estores and San
Miguel, who insisted they were not at the crime scene, tended to conflict with the
sworn statement of Danilo Fajarillo, which was the basis for the Provincial Prosecutor's
ruling that he finds no probable cause against the two.
7. Danilo Fajarillo's sworn statement said he saw Jugueta with a certain "Hapon" and
Gilbert Estores at the crime scene, but it was only Jugueta who was carrying a firearm
and the two other people with him had no participation in the shooting incident.
8. Said circumstances bolster the credibility of Norberto Divina's testimony That Estores
and San Miguel may have been involved in the killing of his two young daughters.
ISSUE
WON Estores and San Miguel can be subjected to reinvestigation
HELD
YES!
1. Such reinvestigation would not subject Estores and San Miguel to double jeopardy
because the same only attaches if the following requisites are present:
a. (1) a first jeopardy has attached before the second;
b. (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and
c. (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first.
2. In turn, a first jeopardy attaches only
a. (a) after a valid indictment;
b. (b) before a competent court;
c. (c) after arraignment;
d. (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and
e. (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent.
3. In this case, the case against Estores and San Miguel was dismissed before they were
arraigned.
4. Thus, there can be no double jeopardy to speak of. Let true justice be served by
reinvestigating the real participation, if any, of Estores and San Miguel in the killing of
Mary Grace and Claudine Divina.

ORDER: The Prosecutor General is DIRECTED to immediately conduct a REINVESTIGATION on

the possible criminal liability of Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel regarding this case.
Likewise, let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Secretary of Justice for his information and
guidance.