COMELEC & SIXTO DELA VICTORIA v. CA et.

al
229 SCRA 501. January 26, 1994
Quiason, J.

Doctrine: Double jeopardy attaches when the accused, charged in a valid complaint or
information before a competent court, is acquitted or convicted or the case is unconditionally
dismissed without his express consent after he has been arraigned and entered a plea.

FACTS
The present case is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and was filed by the petitioners
against the appellate court, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of CA in granting the
petition for certiorari filed by Carmelo Locsin. The facts show that petitioner dela Victoria and
respondent Locsin both ran for the position of municipal mayor wherein the latter won. This was
followed by the filing of an information by the COMELEC before the trial court, accusing
respondent of intimidating members of the Municipal Board of Canvassers during the canvassing
of the elections. Respondent Locsin pleaded not guilty. After the presentation of evidence by the
prosecution, he likewise filed a Demurrer to Evidence claiming that the prosecution failed to
adduce sufficient evidence against him. However, the trial court dismissed such demurrer which
prompted Locsin to file with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari which was subsequently
granted by the CA. In their respective answers in the present petition, Locsin and the Solicitor
General both contend that the filing of the instant petition will place Locsin in double jeopardy.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the filing of the present petition amount to double jeopardy? – YES.
It is said that double jeopardy attaches when the accused, charged in a valid complaint or
information before a competent court, is acquitted or convicted or the case is unconditionally
dismissed without his express consent after he has been arraigned and entered a plea.
Nevertheless, even if the motion to dismiss was with the consent or by the accused himself,
double jeopardy may be attached in two instances: (i) when the ground is insufficiency of the
evidence for the prosecution, and (ii) when the proceedings have been prolonged unreasonably,
in violation of the accused's right to speedy trial
In the present case, the respondents filed a demurrer to evidence after the presentation of
the prosecution before the RTC. Demurrer to evidence is governed by Sec. 15, Rule 119 of
1995 Rules on Criminal Procedure which states that after the prosecution rested its case, the
court may dismiss the same either on its own initiative and on the motion of the accused filed
with prior leave of court. If the motion to leave is granted, the case will be considered
dismissed. If the same is denied, the accused may either present his evidence or waive the same
and submit the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution.
Applying the foregoing in the case at bar, the CA reviewed the evidence presented by the
prosecution and found the same to be insufficient. It also held that when respondent judge
denied the demurrer, he committed a grave abuse of discretion. And since it was a decision
based on the merits (insufficiency of evidence by the prosecution), the dismissal amounts to
an acquittal of the accused of the offense charged and the filing of the present petition will
amount to a double jeopardy.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

SERAPIO C2021 | 1