GRIMARES, NATAZIA D.



Article III. Section 21. 5. No Appeal from Acquittal; Instances of Void Acquittal; Review by Petition for Certiorari.

People vs. Dumlao — 580 SCRA 409 (2009)

Facts:

On May 10, 1982, or around that time, the accused Hermenegildo Dumlao with four other members of the Board of
Trustees of the Government Service Insurance System, unlawfully entered into a contract of lease –purchase with
Emilio G. La’o wherein GSIS agreed to sell to the latter a GSIS acquired property in Mabini St. Ermita Manila, together
with a 5 story building located there n, for the sum of two million pesos which contract is manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the government.

Dumlao pleaded not guilty and proceeded with the pre-trial where they agreed upon a joint stipulation of facts.

Dumlao thereafter filed a Motion to Dismiss/Quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense.
Pointing out that since 4 out of 7 members of the Board of Trustees did not sign the minutes of the meeting it was safe
to conclude that there was no quorum of the board to approve the supposed resolution authorizing the sale of the GSIS
property. The Sandigangayan consequently granted Dumlao’s motion.

People of the Philippines, represented by the Ombudsman filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 seeking the
reversal and setting aside of the Sandiganbayan Resolution. Dumlao on the other hand among others offered the ground
of double jeopardy which is a violation of his constitutional rights should the court give due course to the Ombudsman’s
petition.

Issue:
Whether or not double jeopardy will attach should this court give due course to the Ombudsman’s petition.
Held:
In the issue of double jeopardy, To raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a
first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated;
and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. The first jeopardy attaches
attaches only (1) 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 convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed
or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. In the instant case, double jeopardy has
not yet set in. The first jeopardy has not yet attached. There is no question that four of the five elements
of legal jeopardy are present. However, we find the last element - valid conviction, acquittal, dismissal
or termination of the case - wanting. As previously discussed, the Sandiganbayan violated the
prosecution's right to due process. The prosecution was deprived of its opportunity to prosecute its case
and to prove the accused's culpability.
The resolution of Sandiganbayan granting the Motion to Dismiss/Quash of respondent Dumlao was reversed
and set aside.