CO V LIM

GR NO. 164669-70
SEC. 3, RULE 117
SIEGFRIED

FACTS:
On 6 December 2001, the NBI arrested Harold Lim (Lim), who was administering the store at the
time, and seized 30 boxes containing cell cards worth PHP332,605 when it raided the A-K Video Store
owned by Avelino Go (Go).

The City Prosecutor of Manila (CPM) issued a Resolution recommending the prosecution of Lim for
violation of PD NO. 1612 (The Anti-Fencing Law). The Information filed before the RTC of Manila
alleged that the Respondent willfully and feloniously possess, keep, conceal, receive, acquire, sell or
dispose, or buy and sell the seized items belonging to LIEZL CO (The Petitioner), which said cell
cards, said accused knew or should have known to have been the subject/proceeds of the crime of
Theft or Robbery.

Details of the Procedures before the Review Resolution:

The Respondent moved for a reinvestigation of his case before the Office of the CPM and was
granted by the RTC on 25 April 2002.
The arraignment that was initially scheduled on 21 November 2002 but was then
rescheduled more than once.
The Petitioner then filed a complaint against Go before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Manila for violation of PD 1612.
The Reinvestigation of the case against Lim was conducted together with the Preliminary
Investigation of Go.

Review Resolution: The CPM reaffirmed its finding of probable cause against Lim and recommended
the prosecution of Go. According to the Resolution, the latter was found to be in conspiracy in the
commission of the crime with Lim. The Respondents then moved for the consolidation of the
criminal cases and was then granted by the RTC.

Acting Secretary of the DOJ (Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez), issued a resolution reversing the
Review Resolution. The CPM was directed to withdraw forthwith the informations for violation PD
1612 filed in the court against Lim and Go. More than a week later, the Assistant Prosecutor Corpuz
filed a Motion to Withdraw Informations seeking the dismissal of the cases filed against the
respondents pursuant to the reversal of the Review Resolution.

However, a month after the reversal of the Review Resolution, the respondents were arraigned, the
evidence were marked by the prosecution and defense, and their stipulations of facts were
submitted. The Defense Counsel moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that a
Motion to Withdraw Informations was already filed (MOST CRUCIAL POINT AS EXPLAINED IN
HELD # 2 ). The Private Prosecutor opposed the motion to dismiss on the ground that the reversal of
the Review Resolution was not binding upon the Court.

The RTC ordered the dismissal of the criminal cases filed on the ground that the Office of the CPM
and the DOJ would not prosecute the cases against Lim and Go. Material content of the RTCs
dismissal: the Public Prosecutor (Valencia) will be placed in an awkward, if not precarious situation,
since he will be going against the very Orders of his own Office and the DOJ, which wants the
information withdrawn and if the CPM and DOJ will not prosecute this then the same should be
dismissed. The Petitioner filed a petition seeking the reversal of the Review Resolution.
ISSUES:
1.) Whether or not the decision of the RTC to dismiss was valid?

2.) Whether or not the rights of the two accused against double jeopardy was violated
considering that they expressly moved for the dismissal of the criminal cases against them?
(Directly related to Rule 117)
HELD:
1.) No. The RTC is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice since it is
mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case. Moreover, the RTC
judge did not positively state that the evidence presented against the respondents was
insufficient for a prima facie case nor did the aforequoted Order include a discussion of the
merits of the case based on an evaluation or assessment of evidence of record.

2.) No. The fourth requisite of Double Jeopardy (refer to requisites below) was not attending in
this case because the respondents through its defense counsel had given their consent to
the termination of the case.

Requisites of Double Jeopardy: (1) There is a valid Information/Complaint. (2) The

Information/Complaint should be filed before a competent jurisdiction. (3) The Accused has
pleaded to the charge. (4) The Accused has been (a) convicted, (b) acquitted, or (c) has been
dismissed or terminated without the express consent of the accused.

Other Decisions of the Court:

1.) The Petitioner was not found guilty of Forum Shopping since there is no identity of relief and
cause of action in the present petition and in the other petition. The determination made by
Acting Secretary of Justice is distinct from the judicial determination of the RTC. These are
two very different actions that were being petitioned.

2.) The Court found the arraignment made and subsequent dismissal order of the RTC and the
public prosecutor who has already filed a motion to withdraw agreed to have the
respondents arraigned. Since there were not conclusive findings of bad faith by the two, the
Court issued a reminder to avoid all appearances of suspicious or questionable behavior so
as not to unduly strain public trust.