G.R. No. 136264 - ATTY. REYNALDO P. DIMAYACYAC, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. VICENTE Q. ROXAS, IRENE AGBADA-CRUZ, SIXTO AGBADA CRUZ, MERCEDES ARISTORENAS AND ROMEO GOMEZ AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the information was quashed. More than two (2) years after the quashal of the information in Criminal Case No. Q-91-18037 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. Q-93-49988 and 49989. The Informations arose from the questioned acts of falsification subject of the earlier quashed information in Criminal Case No. Q-91-18037. 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. 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. Q-93-49988 involved a different document as that involved in Criminal Case No. Q-91-18037 which had already been quashed. Resolution of the motion to quash the information in Criminal Case No. Q-93-49989 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. Q-93-49988 and ordered petitioners arraignment, he holding that said case did not place petitioner in double jeopardy. [2] 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. Q-91-18037, on petitioners motion, was quashed on the ground that more than one offense was charged pursuant to Sec. 3 (e) of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court, [3] he is not placed in double jeopardy by the filing of another Information for an offense included in the charge subject of the Information in Criminal Case No. Q-91-18037. [4] Hence, herein petition for review on certiorari assigning the following errors of the CA, to wit: 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; 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; 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 ORDER of dismissal of Honorable Judge Benigno T. Dayaw in Criminal Case No. Q-91-18037 on August 23, 1991 has become final and