PEOPLE VS TAMPAL

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LUIS TAMPAL, DOMINGO PADUMON, ARSENIO PADUMON, SAMUEL PADUMON, and HON. WILFREDO C. OCHOTORENA

G.R. No. 102485   May 22, 1995

Facts:

          LUIS TAMPAL, DOMINGO PADUMON, ARSENIO PADUMON, SAMUEL PADUMON, PABLITO SUCO, DARIO SUCO and GALVINO CADLING were charged  with the crime of "Robbery with Homicide and Multiple Physical Serious Injuries."  Only private respondents Luis Tampal, Samuel Padumon, Arsenio Padumon and Domingo Padumon, were arrested. The others remained at large.

Upon arraignment, the private respondents pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.  The case was set for hearing. On said date, however, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Wilfredo Guantero mover for postponement on the ground that he failed to contact his material witnesses. The case was reset without any objection from the defense counsel.  The case was called on but the prosecutor was not present. The respondent judge considered the absence of the prosecutor as unjustified, and dismissed the criminal case for failure to prosecute.

The prosecution moved for reconsideration of the order of dismissal claiming, inter alia, that the Provincial Prosecutor's Office was closed on said date. The date was legal holiday for Muslims, the same being the birthday of Prophet Mohammad SAW. Despite the explanation, the motion for reconsideration was denied by the respondent judge. And the judge order the dismissal of the case

Issue:

          Whether or not there is double jeopardy in the present case

Ruling:

          The Supreme Court held that In dismissing criminal cases based on the right of the accused to speedy trial, courts should carefully weigh the circumstances attending each case. They should balance the right of the accused and the right of the State to punish people who violate its penal laws. Both the State and the accused are entitled to due process.

          It is apparent that the public prosecutor's failure to attend the September 20, 1991 hearing was due to his good faith and belief that said date was a Muslin Legal Holiday. To be sure, the prosecutor could not be faulted for not working on that day since the Provincial Prosecutor's Office was closed pursuant to the Sections 2 and 5 of Presidential Decree No. 291 dated September 12, 1973, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 322.

          In determining the right of an accused to speedy trial, courts should do more than a mathematical computation of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case. What offend the right of the accused to speedy trial are unjustified postponements which prolong trial for an unreasonable length of time. In the case it was only postponed twice and for a period of less than two months. The first postponement was without any objection from the private respondents. The second postponement was due to a valid cause.

          Private respondents cannot also invoke their right against double jeopardy. The three (3) requisites of double jeopardy are: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second, (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated, and (3) a second jeopardy, must be for the same offense as that in the first. 14 Legal jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon a valid indictment, (2) before a competent court, (3) after arraignment (4) when a valid plea has been entered, and (5) when the defendant was acquitted or convicted , or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. The held that dismissal of cases on the ground of failure to prosecute is equivalent to an acquittal that would bar further prosecution of the accused for the same offense. It must be stressed, however, that these dismissals were predicated on the clear right of the accused to speedy trial. These cases are not applicable to the petition at bench considering that the right of the private respondents to speedy trial has not been violated by the State. For this reason, private respondents cannot invoke their right against double jeopardy.