SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 409 28/09/2018, 1:01 PM

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Espinosa
*
G.R. Nos. 153714-20. August 15, 2003.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. MARIO K.

ESPINOSA, respondent.

Remedial Law; Certiorari; The extraordinary remedy of

certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.·Prior to
submitting the instant Petition to this Court, petitioner should have
filed a motion for reconsideration before the SBN. The
extraordinary remedy of certiorari will lie only if there is „no appeal
or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.‰ Here, the plain, speedy and adequate remedy
expressly provided by law is a motion for reconsideration to be filed
within fifteen (15) days from promulgation or notice of the final
order or judgment. The purpose of the motion is „x x x to afford
public respondent an opportunity to correct any actual or fancied
error attributed to it by way of a re-examination of the legal and
factual aspects of the case.‰

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

257

VOL. 409, AUGUST 15, 2003 257

People vs. Espinosa

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661e8a3da38d4a6d5e003600fb002c009e/p/AQT078/?username=Guest Page 1 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 409 28/09/2018, 1:01 PM

Same; Same; Appeals; A judgment or final order or resolution of

the Sandiganbayan may be appealed to the Supreme Court via a
verified petition for review on certiorari.·The proper remedy is
appeal under Rule 45, not certiorari under Rule 65. Section 7 of
Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No.
8249, provides that „[d]ecisions and final orders of the
Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by [a]
petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in
accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.‰ Section 1, Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court, likewise provides that a judgment or final order
or resolution of the Sandiganbayan may be appealed to the
Supreme Court via a verified petition for review on certiorari.
Criminal Procedure; Reinvestigations; Court does not lose
control of the proceedings by reason of such review; Once it had
assumed jurisdiction it is not handcuffed by any resolution of the
reviewing prosecuting authority.·Under Section 11(c) of Rule 116 of
the Rules of Court, the arraignment shall be suspended for a period
not exceeding 60 days when a reinvestigation or review is being
conducted at either the Department of Justice or the Office of the
President. However, we should stress that the court does not lose
control of the proceedings by reason of such review. Once it had
assumed jurisdiction, it is not handcuffed by any resolution of the
reviewing prosecuting authority. Neither is it deprived of its
jurisdiction by such resolution. The principles established in Crespo
v. Mogul still stands.
Same; Constitutional Law; Double Jeopardy; Requisites to
substantiate a claim for double jeopardy.·To substantiate a claim
for double jeopardy, the following must be demonstrated: „x x x (1)
[A] first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the
first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; (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. „And legal jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon a valid
indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d)
[when] a valid plea [has] been entered; and (e) the case was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of
the accused.‰
Same; Same; Same; Waiver of a constitutional right must be
clear, categorical, knowing and intelligent.·It has been the
unwavering position of this, Court that substantial rights cannot be

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661e8a3da38d4a6d5e003600fb002c009e/p/AQT078/?username=Guest Page 2 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 409 28/09/2018, 1:01 PM

trifled with or cast aside on the basis of mere suppositions and

conjectures. The relinquishment of a constitutional right has to be
laid out convincingly. Such waiver must be clear, categorical,
knowing and intelligent.

258

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Espinosa

Same; Same; Same; The dismissal having been secured by

petitioner without the express consent of the accused does not
amount to a waiver of the right against double jeopardy.·On the
other hand, private respondent has amply shown that he learned of
the Motion only after the cases had been dismissed. It is clear that
the dismissal, having been secured by petitioner without the express
consent of the accused, does not amount to a waiver of the right
against double jeopardy. But it does unequivocally show the fourth
requisite for the proper invocation of such right.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for the People.
Roque, Butuyan, Gangoso Law Offices for respondent
Espinosa.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

A waiver of the constitutional right against double jeopardy

must be clear, categorical, knowing and intelligent.
Corollary to this rule, the alleged conditions attached to an
arraignment must be unmistakable, express, informed and
enlightened. Otherwise, the plea should be deemed to be
simple and unconditional.

The Case
1
Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, seeking to nullify the April 10, 2002

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661e8a3da38d4a6d5e003600fb002c009e/p/AQT078/?username=Guest Page 3 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 409 28/09/2018, 1:01 PM

2
Resolution of the Sandiganbayan (SBN) in Criminal Case
Nos. 26422-26428. The anti-graft court dismissed the
criminal cases against Respondent Mario K. Espinosa on
the ground of double jeopardy as follows:

„That being the case, the Court is constrained to concur with the
accused that jeopardy has set in and that he is now at peril of
punishment twice for the same offense in violation of the protection
afforded by Sec. 21, Art. III of the Constitution.
„WHEREFORE, these cases are DISMISSED as against accused
3
Mario K. Espinosa alone.‰

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 10-22.

2 Penned by former Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena and
concurred in by Justices Catalino R. Castañeda Jr. and Gregory S. Ong.
3 Resolution, p. 11; Rollo, p. 37.

259

VOL. 409, AUGUST 15, 2003 259

People vs. Espinosa

The Antecedents

On February 4, 1998, separate cases of estafa and

attempted corruption of public officers were filed before the
SBN by the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) against (1)
Respondent Espinosa, then provincial administrator of
Masbate; (2) Emma Vasquez; and (3) Romeo Sanano. The
cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 24438 and
24439.
Prior to his arraignment, Espinosa filed a Motion for
Reinvestigation of the cases. 4The SBN Fourth Division
granted the Motion in an Order dated March 23, 1988, and
directed the Office of the Special Prosecutor to evaluate the
evidence against the accused.
While the cases were being reevaluated, Espinosa filed
with the SBN a Motion for Leave to Travel Abroad for the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661e8a3da38d4a6d5e003600fb002c009e/p/AQT078/?username=Guest Page 4 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 409 28/09/2018, 1:01 PM

period May 2-13, 1999.

On the date set for the hearing of the Motion, the SBN
(Fourth Division) issued an Order resetting the hearing to
April 22, 1999. It required private5 respondent to be
„conditionally arraigned on that date‰ before it would act
on his Motion to Travel.
As ordered, private respondent was arraigned, and
thereafter granted his Motion to Travel. The Order of
Arraignment dated April 22, 2000, stated that „upon being
duly arraigned, [he] entered a plea of ÂNot GuiltyÊ to6 both
Informations in Crim. Case Nos. 24438 and 24439.‰ The
Court also ordered the deferment of the pretrial of the
cases, pending the reinvestigation then being conducted by
the Ombudsman.
On December 28, 2000, the OMB·through the Office of
the Special Prosecutor·moved to withdraw ex parte the
two cases against private respondent. The SBN granted the
Motion in a Resolution dated January 9, 2001.
Thereafter, the OMB filed in the same court seven
Informations for Malversation of Public Funds against
Espinosa and several others. These Informations were
docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 24622 to 24628 and raffled
to the SBN First Division.

_______________

4 Rollo, p. 39.
5 Id., p. 41.
6 Id., p. 42.

260

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Espinosa

On January 22, 2001, Espinosa filed a Motion to Quash the

Informations. He argued that double jeopardy had already
attached, because (1) he had been arraigned in the previous
estafa cases; and (2) the Motion to Withdraw the two
earlier ones had been granted without his express consent.
Petitioner countered that the arraignment for the two
previous cases was „conditional,‰ because it was made

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661e8a3da38d4a6d5e003600fb002c009e/p/AQT078/?username=Guest Page 5 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 409 28/09/2018, 1:01 PM

solely for the purpose of accommodating private

respondentÊs request to travel abroad while the matters
were pending reinvestigation.

Ruling of the Sandiganbayan

In its assailed Resolution, the SBN First Division ruled

that jeopardy had attached in the first instance when
Criminal Case Nos. 24438-24439 were dismissed upon the
prosecutionÊs „ex parte motion to withdraw the
information.‰ It noted that the dismissal had been sought
and obtained without respondentÊs knowledge, much less
express consent.
It likewise held private respondentÊs actual arraignment
to be straightforward and unqualified. The records did not
disclose any circumstance showing that the accused knew
that his arraignment was 7
subject to certain conditions.
Hence, this recourse.

Issue

Petitioner submits the following issue for the CourtÊs

consideration:

„Whether or not [the SBN] acted with grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or x x x excess of jurisdiction in dismissing
Criminal Cases Nos. 34622 to 24628 as against Respondent
8
Espinosa.‰

_______________

7 This case was deemed submitted for decision on April 3, 2003, upon
the, CourtÊs receipt of respondentÊs Memorandum signed by Attys. Joel
Ruiz Butuyan and Roger R. Rayel of Roque & Butuyan Law Offices.
PetitionerÊs Memorandum, received on March 26, 2003, was signed by
Special Prosecutor Dennis M. Villa-Ignacio, Deputy Special Prosecutor
Robert E. Kallos, Atty. Rodrigo V. Coquia and Atty. Manuel T. Soriano, Jr.
8 PetitionerÊs Memorandum, p. 11; Rollo, p. 101. Original in upper
case.

261

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661e8a3da38d4a6d5e003600fb002c009e/p/AQT078/?username=Guest Page 6 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 409 28/09/2018, 1:01 PM

VOL. 409, AUGUST 15, 2003 261

People vs. Espinosa

The CourtÊs Ruling

The Petition is unmeritorious.

Preliminary Issue:
Procedural Lapses

Before tackling the main issue raised by petitioner, the

Court will point out some procedural lapses.
First, prior to submitting the instant Petition to this
Court, petitioner should have filed a motion for
reconsideration before the SBN. The extraordinary remedy
of certiorari will lie only if there is „no appeal or any other
plain, speedy
9
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law.‰
Here, the plain,
10
speedy and adequate remedy expressly
provided by law is a motion for reconsideration to be filed
within fifteen (15) days 11from promulgation or notice 12of the
final order or judgment. The purpose of the motion is „x
x x to afford public respondent an opportunity to correct
any actual or fancied error attributed to it by way of a re-
examination of the legal and factual aspects of the case.‰
Explaining further, the Court said:

„x x x. PetitionerÊs inaction or negligence under the circumstances is

tantamount to a deprivation of the right and opportunity of the
respondent commission to cleanse itself of an error unwittingly
committed or to vindicate itself of an act unfairly imputed. An
improvident resort to certiorari cannot be used as a tool to
circumvent the right of public respondent to review and purge its
13
decision of an oversight, if any. x x x.‰ (Italics supplied)

Second, the proper remedy is appeal under Rule 45, not

certiorari under Rule 65. Section 7 of Presidential Decree
No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 8249, provides
that „[d]ecisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan
shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by [a] petition for
review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661e8a3da38d4a6d5e003600fb002c009e/p/AQT078/?username=Guest Page 7 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 409 28/09/2018, 1:01 PM

accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.‰

_______________

9 §1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

10 Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by RA 8249.
11 Id., §7.
12 Purefoods Corporation v. NLRC, 171 SCRA 415, March 21, 1989.
13 Id., p. 425, per Regalado, J. Italics supplied.

262

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Espinosa

Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, likewise provides

that a judgment or final order or resolution of the
Sandiganbayan may be appealed to the Supreme Court via
a verified petition for review on certiorari.
Clearly then, the remedy of appeal was available to
petitioner. For unexplained reasons, it chose not to pursue
this recourse. Neither has it cited grounds to exempt the
Petition from the stringent rule forbidding a substitution of
remedies. Verily, its cavalier disregard of procedural
requirements, especially its erroneous choice of remedy, is
indeed enough reason to throw out this Petition summarily.

Main Issue:
Attachment of Legal Jeopardy

Even if we are to gloss over these procedural infirmities,

the Petition should nonetheless be dismissed for its lack of
substantive merit.
Petitioner argues that the dismissal of the later
Informations against private respondent on the14
ground of
double jeopardy had no factual or legal basis, because his
arraignment in the earlier cases was only „conditional.‰
We are unconvinced.
15
Previous cases have mentioned the SBNÊs practice of
„conditionally‰ arraigning the accused 16
pending the
OmbudsmanÊs reinvestigation of the case. This practice is

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661e8a3da38d4a6d5e003600fb002c009e/p/AQT078/?username=Guest Page 8 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 409 28/09/2018, 1:01 PM

not mentioned or provided for in the regular rules of

procedure. 17
Section 9 of PD 1606, as amended by RA 7975,
provides:

_______________

14 PetitionerÊs Memorandum, p. 7; Rollo, p. 97.

15 Cojuangco, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 360 Phil. 559; 300 SCRA 367,
December 21, 1998; Layus v. Sandiganbayan, 320 SCRA 233, December
8, 1999.
16 Under Republic Act No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act, the
Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.
17 RA 7975 is entitled „An Act to Strengthen the Functional and
Structural Organization of the Sandiganbayan, Amending for that
Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended.‰

263

VOL. 409, AUGUST 15, 2003 263

People vs. Espinosa

„Sec. 9. Rules of Procedure.·The Rules of Court promulgated by the

Supreme Court shall apply to all cases and proceedings filed with
the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan shall have no power to
promulgate its own rules of procedure, except to adopt internal
rules governing the allotment of cases among the divisions, the
rotation of justices among them, and other matters relating to the
internal operations of the court which shall be enforced until
repealed or modified by the Supreme Court.‰
18
The Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan,
promulgated by this Court, do not mention any „conditional
arraignment.‰ Neither do the regular Rules of Court.
Arraignment is an indispensable requirement of due
process. It consists of the judgeÊs or the clerk of courtÊs
reading of the criminal complaint or information to the
defendant. At this stage, the accused is granted, for the
first time, the opportunity to be officially informed
19
of the
nature and the cause of the accusation. Thus,
arraignment cannot be regarded lightly or brushed aside

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661e8a3da38d4a6d5e003600fb002c009e/p/AQT078/?username=Guest Page 9 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 409 28/09/2018, 1:01 PM

peremptorily.
Espinosa pleaded simply and unconditionally on April
22, 1999. No unusual ceremony punctuated his
arraignment. The SBN itself found this simple process
inconsistent with its studied manner of „conditionally‰
arraigning the accused pending reinvestigation in other
cases. We quote from its assailed Resolution as follows:

„Since it is the accused who wishes to travel even while his case is
pending review, and in order that the Court might not lose
jurisdiction over him while he is abroad, the accused and counsel
are advised as part of the arraignment process, that the arraignment
is ÂconditionalÊ, i.e., that arraignment is without prejudice to the
results of the reinvestigation or review; that if the prosecution
should recommend the filing of new charges, in lieu of the present
charge, which would necessarily include or be included in the
present accusation, the accused would now be understood as having
waived his right against double jeopardy; and that if the
prosecution sought to withdraw the information, the arraignment
would be deemed to have been of no effect. If the accused accepts
these conditions for arraignment, then he is arraigned and allowed
to travel. In other words, in this instance, the accused is clearly
aware of what is going on; at the time of his arraignment, there is an
explicit waiver against the protec-

_______________

18 AM No. 02-6-07-SB, August 28, 2002.

19 §14(2), Article III of the Constitution.

264

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Espinosa

20
tion against double jeopardy as a condition for his travel.‰ (Italics
supplied)

Under Section 11(c) of Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, the

arraignment shall be suspended for a period not exceeding
60 days when a reinvestigation or review is being
conducted at either the Department of Justice or the Office
of the President. However, we should stress that the court

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661e8a3da38d4a6d5e003600fb002c009e/p/AQT078/?username=Guest Page 10 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 409 28/09/2018, 1:01 PM

does not lose control of the proceedings by reason of such

review. Once it had assumed jurisdiction, it is not
handcuffed 21
by any resolution of the reviewing prosecuting
authority. 22Neither is it deprived of its jurisdiction by such
23
resolution. The principles established in Crespo v. Mogul
still stands, as follows:

„Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and whether it was
due to a reinvestigation by the fiscal or a review by the Secretary of
Justice whereby a motion to dismiss was submitted to the Court, the
Court in the exercise of its discretion may grant the motion or deny it
and require that the trial on the merits proceed for the proper
determination of the case.
xxx xxx xxx
„The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or
information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as to its
dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the
sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the
direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while
the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the
trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with
the case before it. The determination of the case is within its
exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the case
filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court which has the
option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done
before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion
was filed after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the
Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the
24
investigation.‰ (Italics supplied)

_______________

20 Sandiganbayan Resolution, p. 10; Rollo, p. 37.

21 Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, 344 Phil. 207, 278 SCRA 656,
September 5, 1997.
22 Torralba v. Sandiganbayan, 230 SCRA 33, February 10, 1994.
23 151 SCRA 462, June 30, 1981, per Gancayco, J.
24 Id., pp. 470-471.

265

VOL. 409, AUGUST 15, 2003 265

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661e8a3da38d4a6d5e003600fb002c009e/p/AQT078/?username=Guest Page 11 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 409 28/09/2018, 1:01 PM

People vs. Espinosa

In any event, petitioner joists that private respondent has

waived his right to invoke double jeopardy in the light of
his allegedly „conditional‰ arraignment.
Again, the Court is not persuaded.
The right against double jeopardy is enshrined in
Section 21 of Article III of the Constitution, which reads:

„No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the

same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance
conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same act.‰

This constitutionally-mandated right is procedurally

buttressed by Section2517 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure. To substantiate a claim for double
jeopardy, the following must be demonstrated:

„x x x (1) [A] first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second;
(2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; (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.
„And legal jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon a valid indictment;
(b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) [when] a
valid plea [has] been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or
26
otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.‰

_______________

25 Rule 117 of Section 7 reads:

„Sec. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy.·When an accused has

been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction,
upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form
and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the
charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case
shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt
to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily
includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661e8a3da38d4a6d5e003600fb002c009e/p/AQT078/?username=Guest Page 12 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 409 28/09/2018, 1:01 PM

complaint or information.‰
xxx xxx xxx

26 Cuison v. Court of Appeals, 351 Phil. 1089, 1105; 289 SCRA 159,
April 15, 1993, per Panganiban, J.; citing Guerrero v. Court of Appeals,
257 SCRA 703, 712, June 28, 1996, per Panganiban, J. Citations,
omitted.

266

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Espinosa

It has been the unwavering position of this, Court that

substantial rights cannot be trifled with or cast aside on
the basis of mere suppositions and conjectures. The
relinquishment of a constitutional right has to be laid out
convincingly. Such waiver 27
must be clear, categorical,
knowing and intelligent.
As can be gleaned from the Memorandum of petitioner,
the alleged waiver falls short of the above requirement:

„Unfortunately, the records reveal that a lawyer for respondent

Espinosa was present when the April 19,1999 Order of the Fourth
Division was issued in open court. Thus, said lawyer must have
heard that the hearing of the motion to travel was reset to April 22,
28
1999 so that the movant could be conditionally arraigned.‰
xxx xxx xxx
„x x x. As stressed in the petition, the arraignment was
conditional for if it was not so, respondent Espinosa would have been
deemed to have abandoned his recourse for the reevaluation of his
29
cases before the Office of the Ombudsman.‰ (Italics supplied)

As correctly pointed out in the challenged Resolution, the

dismissal of the estafa and the corruption cases was made
upon petitionerÊs ex parte Motion for the withdrawal of the
Informations. Petitioner does not dispute the fact that
private respondent was not notified of this Motion. Neither
was a hearing held thereon.
On the other hand, private respondent has amply shown
that he learned of the Motion only after the cases had been
dismissed. It is clear that the dismissal, having been
secured by petitioner without the express consent of the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661e8a3da38d4a6d5e003600fb002c009e/p/AQT078/?username=Guest Page 13 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 409 28/09/2018, 1:01 PM

accused, does not amount to a waiver of the right against

double jeopardy. But it does unequivocally show the fourth
requisite for the proper invocation of such right.
In a nutshell, the alleged conditions attached to an
arraignment must be unmistakable, express, informed and
enlightened. They must be expressly stated in the Order
disposing of the arraignment. Otherwise, the plea should
be deemed to be simple and unconditional.

_______________

27 People v. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289, February 11, 1986, citing People
v. Caguioa, 95 SCRA 2, January 17, 1980; Chavez v. Court of Appeals,
133 Phil. 661; 24 SCRA 663, August 19, 1968; Abriol v. Homeres, 84 Phil.
525, August 31, 1949.
28 PetitionerÊs Memorandum, p. 19; Rollo, p. 109.
29 Id., at pp. 15 & 105.

267

VOL. 409, AUGUST 15, 2003 267

Reyes vs. Court of Appeals

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Puno (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and

Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.

Petition dismissed.

Note.·An appeal by the prosecution from a judgment of

acquittal would place the defendant in double jeopardy
(People vs. Court of Appeals, 308 SCRA 687 [1999])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661e8a3da38d4a6d5e003600fb002c009e/p/AQT078/?username=Guest Page 14 of 15
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 409 28/09/2018, 1:01 PM

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001661e8a3da38d4a6d5e003600fb002c009e/p/AQT078/?username=Guest Page 15 of 15