testimonies to December 5, 1990.
Hence, petitioner filed
787. Guerrero v. CA - 257 SCRA 703
Topic:
Facts:
An Information for Triple Homicide Through
Reckless Imprudence was filed against petitioner. Due to
several postponements, all filed by the petitioner, the
prosecution was finally able to start presenting its
evidence on September 29, 1972 after petitioner entered
his pleas of 'Not Guilty.’ On May 15, 1990, the private
prosecutor submitted copies of the duplicate originals of
the testimonies. The private prosecutor manifested that
he had communicated with one of the stenographers on
record, who promised to look into her files and hopefully
complete the transcription of her stenographic notes. On
October 1, 1990, the presiding Judge set the retaking of
the witnesses’ testimony on October 24, 1990. On
October 24, 1990, the retaking of the testimonies was
reset to November 9, 1990 due to petitioner's failure to
appear on the scheduled hearing. On November 7, 1990,
petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that his
right to speedy trial has been violated. On November 9,
1990, presiding Judge denied the motion to dismiss and
reset the retaking of the testimonies to November 21,
1990. On November 16, 1990, petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration which was denied on November 21,
1990. The presiding judge set anew the retaking of the
petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus for the
review of the orders of the Regional Trial Court dated
November 9, 1990 and November 20, 1990 anent
petitioner's motion to dismiss, as well as his motion for
reconsideration. The petition was anchored on the
alleged violation of petitioner's constitutional right to
speedy trial.
Issue:
Held: Anent petitioner's contention that the re-hearing
would place him in double jeopardy, suffice it to say that
there has been no termination of the criminal prosecution
- i.e. of that "first jeopardy." For double jeopardy to
attach, the following elements must concur: “x x x It is a
settled rule that to raise the defense of double jeopardy,
the following requisites must concur: (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, or the
second offense includes or is necessarily included in the
offense charged in the first information, or is an attempt
to commit the same or is a frustration thereof (citations
omitted). And legal jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon a
valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after
arraignment; (d) a valid plea having been entered; and
(e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated
without the express consent of the accused (citation
omitted).” [ In the present case, there has not even been
a first jeopardy, since the fourth element - dismissal or
termination of the case without the express consent of
the accused - is not present. Moreover, measured
against the aforequoted standard, the retaking of
testimonies cannot in any wise be deemed a second
jeopardy. Hence, it is beyond dispute that petitioner's
claim of double jeopardy is utterly without basis.
 certain grounds in a motion to quash filed prior to the plea
does not operate as a waiver of the right to invoke them
788. Teodoro v. CA - 258 SCRA 603 later. Even after arraignment, a motion to dismiss the
information may be filed if it is based on the ground that:
Topic: (a) the information charges no offense; (b) the trial court
has no jurisdiction; (c) the penalty or the offense has
Facts: The petitioner was charged in four separate been extinguished; and (d) that double jeopardy has
informations for estafa thru falsification of public attached.
documents. It was alleged that the petitioner, together
with Melania Guerrero, who produced a special power of
attorney claimed establish have been executed by the
late Clemente Guerrero, had conspired with their co-
accused in selling some properties of the decedent to the
widow's sister, Luz Andico, through fictitious deeds of
sale notarized by the petitioner. The motion to dismiss to
was eventually denied by the trial court, as so was the
subsequent motion for reconsideration. The petitioner
questioned the denial of the motions. Petitioner
unabashedly admits that the motion to dismiss in the
instant criminal cases was filed after the arraignment so
that the cases could not be refiled again considering the
principle of double jeopardy.
Issue: Whether or not the double jeopardy has attached
in petitioner’s motion to quash

Held: No. When the Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss

after the arraignment, he failed to attach the double
jeopardy. According to the SC, a person who does not
move to quash a complaint or information until after he
has pleaded is deemed to have waived all objections
then available which are grounds of a motion to quash.
However, this is subject to exception. By express
provision of Sec. 8 of the same rule, failure to assert

791. People v. Araneta, GR 125894 December 11,
1998, 95 OG 4556
Topic:
Facts:
Respondents were charged with the crimes of
murder and frustrated murder for the death of Datoon, Jr.
Accused Narito Araneta posted a bond of P40,000.00
and pled not guilty. The other accused, Samuel Aronda-
in, Joesel Araneta and Marvin Deogluis, remain at large.
The charges against Joebert Araneta, an active member
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, were dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction over his person. RTC found the
accused guilty of the crime charged. He appealed to the
Court of Appeals and continued to be free on the same
bailbond he had posted with the trial court. While the
case is pending accused, the court receive a copy of the
return of the warrant of arrest. It stated that the police
failed to effect the alias order of arrest issued by Judge
Gustilo as they could not locate accused-appellant and
his whereabouts were unknown.
finding him guilty of homicide and sentencing him to a
minimum of prision mayor to a maximum of reclusion
temporal will become final. The findings of the Court of
Appeals that he should instead be convicted for murder
and meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua can no
longer be acted upon by this Court. And in Criminal Case
No. 34643, accused-appellant will be acquitted from the
charge of frustrated homicide as found by the Court of
Appeals. In fine, accused-appellant will be benefitted by
his act of jumping bail. To avoid this mockery of justice,
the court resolved to continue exercising jurisdiction over
Criminal Case No. 34642. The acquittal of accused-
appellant in Criminal Case No. 34643, however, can no
longer be reviewed in view of the rule on double
jeopardy.

Issue:
Whether or not the Court should proceed to
exercise jurisdiction over his appeal.

Held:
Yes. The court held that dismissal of accused-
appellant’s appeal at this stage will result in injustice. In
Criminal Case No. 34642, the Decision of the trial court
 the accused for probation, the authorization for temporary
liberty on recognizance, and finally the grant of probation,
800. Poso v. Mijares, AM No. RTJ-02-1693, Aug. 21, the orders of respondent Judge arising from these
2002 proceedings do not compel respectability and finality to
constitute double jeopardy. A judgment rendered with
Topic: grave abuse of discretion or without due process does
not exist in legal contemplation and cannot be considered
FACTS: to have attained finality for the simple reason that a void
A complaint for administrative sanctions against judgment has no legality from its inception.
Judge Mijares for allegedly railroading the criminal case
against a self-confessed killer and admitting him to
probation, which unduly obviated the accused’s otherwise
definite date with prison was charged against the said
accuse. The instant administrative case stemmed from
the proceedings for murder, “People v. Virgilio de Guia,”
where the victim, a certain Lito M. Galupo, was a relative
of complainant Oscar M. Poso. There is a question in the
said case, whether the accused truly moved for
reconsideration of the penalty imposed on him by
respondent Judge Mijares. Complainant averred that
respondent Judge had acted upon an unsigned motion
which the accused did not even file

ISSUE:
WON there was a violation against double
jeopardy

HELD:
NONE. The proceedings beginning with the
issuance of the Resolution reducing the penalty of the
accuse upon the allege motion for reconsideration are
patently void and therefore produce no legal effects
whatsoever. From the lowering of the penalty to qualify