MURAO, JOSE PEPITO III

I. Article III Section 14, Right to Speedy Trial:

People v. Gines G.R. No. 83463

Facts:
On January 27, 1987, retired Supreme Court Justice Juvenal K. Guerrero filed a complaint that was
formalized into an information for libel against private respondents Ramon Labo Jr., Francis Floresca, and
Perfecto Manaois. The three respondents were supposedly the publishers of ‘People’s Bagong Taliba’
wherein an article captioned ‘Inihablang Ex-Justice’ appeared in its August 3, 1986 issue. The trial for the
libel case was postponed twice because of private complainant’s absence due to a medical treatment and
operation of the cataract in both of his eyes. It is important to note that the trial was also postponed because
of counsel of Labo Jr. and Floresca, who waived their right to appear at the hearings. The court of herein
respondent judge Gines gave a warning that should complainant retired Justice Guerrero fail to appear on
the October 27, 1987 hearing, the case will be dismissed for lack of interest.
However, on September 27, 1897, private complainant filed with the Fiscal’s Office a complaint for libel
against one Benefredo Esquivel, the person identified by Manaois as the editor of People’s Bagong Taliba.
Esquivel would later admit that he was indeed the editor of the periodical that published the libelous article
about Justice Guerrero but a libel case against him would have already be barred by prescription as the
article was published on August 3, 1986. After private complainant Guerrero failed to appear to the
October 27, 1987 hearing, the assailed Order dismissing the case against Labo Jr., Floresca, and Manaois
are now being questioned.
Issues:
(a) W/N judge Gines erred in dismissing the case for lack of interest by private complainant
Guerrero?
YES. The right to a speedy trial invoked by private respondents Labo Jr., Floresca, and Manaois
is premature and erroneous as private complainant Guerrero missed hearings on good faith. The
dismissal of a case based on the right of speedy trial of the accused may only prosper if the
prosecution postpones trials through capricious, oppressive, and vexatious means. Moreover, it
has only be 8 and one-half month since the complaint was formalized, as such, this period is not
the extended period envisioned by the constitutional provision.
(b) W/N the private respondent’s right against double jeopardy will be violated if herein petition is
granted?
NO. It was on the motion of private respondents that the lower court dismissed the case. Given
this, the rule barring double jeopardy cannot be applied since double jeopardy entails the essential
requisite that the first jeopardy or case was dismissed without the consent of the accused. There
are only two exceptions wherein double jeopardy will attach even if the motion to dismiss the
case is made by the accused himself. First is when there is insufficient evidence, and second,
when there is a violation of a speedy trial. Applied to this case, the exceptions are not present.
Held:
Petition is GRANTED and the Orders of respondent judge is hereby SET ASIDE. The criminal case against
private respondents is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.