PSB v Sps Bermoy (2005, GR 151-912)

 Facts:

    PSB charged the respondents with estafa thru falsification of a public document. PSB alleged that in May 1994, the respondents forged a land title and made it appear to be their own property and presented it to PSB as a collateral in obtaining a loan of PHP1M. 

    The respondents pleaded not guilty and the pre trial was set wherein the counsels of both parties appeared and upon their stipulation, admitted the jurisdiction of the court and the identities of the accused. PSB presented two witnesses, who were their employees who processed the loan documents of the respondents. 

    The trial court granted the respondents' demurrer to evidence for insufficiency of evidence on account of lack of proper identification of the accused. The respondents claim that the witnesses were not able to identify them. As such, they raised the defense that the couple who came to obtain the loan with the fake title were impostors.

Issue: W/N double jeopardy has attached in this case when the respondents appealed in the CA after acquittal by the RTC when the RTC granted the respondents' demurrer to evidence.

Held: Double jeopardy has attached in this case as all the elements required in Sec 7 of Rule 117 on double jeopardy are present in this case.

In the case at bench, it is clear that this petition seeks to review the judgment of the trial court, which already had jurisdiction over the subject matter and of the persons of this case. 

The trial court had jurisdiction to resolve the demurrer to evidence filed by the accused, either by denying it or by dismissing the case for lack of sufficient evidence. 

If the demurrer is granted, resulting in the dismissal of the criminal case and the acquittal of the accused, this can no longer be reviewed UNLESS it can be shown that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. In this case, the petitioner has not shown that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 

Doctrine:

• People v Bans (1994): "review of the sufficiency of the evidence and of the propriety of the acquittal of the accused [as a result of the grant of the demurrer to evidence] lies outside the function of certiorari."

• Elements of the first jeopardy (Sec 7, Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure):
• (a) The complaint or information or other formal charge was sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction;
• (b) The court had jurisdiction;
• (c) The accused had been arraigned and had pleaded; and
• (d) He was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed without his express consent.

• On the fourth element:

• dismissal with express consent of the accused = double jeopardy will not attach
• EXCEPTIONS
• dismissal is 
• based on insufficiency of evidence or 
• on the denial of the right to speedy trial
• A dismissal upon demurrer to evidence falls under the first exception
• That is, if the dismissal 
• had the express consent of the accused
• BUT dismissal is based on demurrer to evidence
• Double jeopardy will attach

• The right against double jeopardy can be invoked if 
1. the accused is charged with the same offense in two separate pending cases, or 
2. the accused is prosecuted anew for the same offense after he had been convicted or acquitted of such offense, or
3. the prosecution appeals from a judgment in the same case. 
• based on Sec 2, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court: "any party may appeal from a final judgment or order, except if the accused would be placed thereby in double jeopardy."