Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Condrada v. People
Condrada v. People
CONDRADA V. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 141646
February 28, 2003
Termination of Jeopardy
FACTS
Petitioner was charged with rape. When he was arraigned on February 26, 1999,
petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. On March 31, 1999, the date set by the
trial court for the initial hearing, the prosecution moved that the same be postponed due to the
absence of the complainant and her witnesses. The hearing was reset on April 29, 1999. On the
said date, the prosecution again moved to postpone the hearing due to the absence of the
complainant and her witnesses. Petitioner objected to the motion on the ground that his right to
speedy trial was being violated by such postponements. The trial court granted the prosecutions
motion and reset the hearing on May 31, 1999. It also directed that the subpoenae to the
complainant and her witnesses be coursed through the National Bureau of Investigation which
handled the investigation of the case. During the hearing on May 31, 1999, the prosecution
requested for another postponement. Petitioner moved for at least a temporary dismissal of the
case. The prosecution manifested that it would not object to a temporary dismissal. Thus, on the
same date, the trial court issued an order temporarily dismissing the case.
On June 22, 1999, the prosecution filed a Motion for Reinstatement and/or Revival of the
case. Appended to said motion was the affidavit of private complainant that the subpoenae sent
to her for the trial of the case did not reach her because in the meantime she had transferred her
residence. The trial court set the hearing on the motion for reinstatement on June 25, 1999.
Petitioner opposed the motion contending that the revival or reinstatement of the case will place
him in double jeopardy. On September 29, 1999, the Court issued a resolution reinstating the
said case and reiterating the issuance of a warrant of arrest for petitioner.
Petitioner filed the instant petition claiming that the case cannot be revived because the
dismissal of the case on May 31, 1999 is permanent in character, having been made in
consideration of his right to speedy trial. The Solicitor General, on the other hand, contends that
the case was dismissed not because petitioners right to speedy trial has been violated by the
postponements of the trial on several instances, but because petitioner through counsel moved
that the case be dismissed at least even temporarily to which the public prosecutor interposed no
objection. The Solicitor General points out that the prosecution moved for the postponement of
the trial several times in good faith and for valid reasons. He likewise argues that the revival of
the case does not place the petitioner twice in jeopardy for the same offense because the
dismissal of the case on May 31, 1999 was made at petitioners instance.
ISSUE: Whether or not the reinstatement of Criminal Case No. 10770 places the petitioner in
double jeopardy.
HELD: No.
A permanent dismissal of a criminal case may refer to the termination of the case on the
merits, resulting in either the conviction or acquittal of the accused; to the dismissal of the case
due to the prosecutions failure to prosecute; or to the dismissal thereof on the ground of
Prepared by: Katrina S. Diploma
1777
unreasonable delay in the proceedings, in violation of the accuseds right to speedy disposition or
trial of the case against him. In contrast, a provisional dismissal of a criminal case is a dismissal
without prejudice to the reinstatement thereof before the order of dismissal becomes final or to
the subsequent filing of a new information for the offense within the periods allowed under the
Revised Penal Code or the Revised Rules of Court.
In the present case, it is clear from the records that the dismissal ordered by the trial court
on May 31, 1999 was a temporary dismissal of the case, and not a permanent dismissal on the
ground that the right of the accused to speedy trial had been violated by the delay in the
prosecution of the said case. The proscription against double jeopardy presupposes that an
accused has been previously charged with an offense, and the case against him is terminated
either by his acquittal or conviction, or dismissed in any other manner without his consent. As a
general rule, the following requisites must be present for double jeopardy to attach: (1) a valid
indictment, (2) before a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) the arraignment of the accused, (4)
a valid plea entered by him, and (5) the acquittal or conviction of the accused, or the dismissal or
termination of the case against him without his express consent. However, there are two
exceptions to the foregoing rule, and double jeopardy may attach even if the dismissal of the case
was with the consent of the accused: first, when there is insufficiency of evidence to support the
charge against him; and second, where there has been an unreasonable delay in the proceedings,
in violation of the accuseds right to speedy trial.