You are on page 1of 2

(Case # 18)

People vs Dumlao
G.R. No. 168918
March 2, 2009


This is an appeal to the Sandiganbayan resolution which granted the motion to dismiss/quash of
respondent Dumlao and dismissed the case against him.

An information was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging respondents Dumlao and others with
violation of section 3 of republic act no. 3019 known as anti-graft and corrupt practices act.

The accused are members of the board of trustees of GSIS charged with unlawful entry to contract of
lease-purchase with La'o private person.

When arraigned, Dumlao pleaded not guilty, and as agreed a joint stipulation of facts and admission of
exhibit was submitted to the court on January 2005

After the pre-trial, Dumlao filed a motion to dismiss/quash on the ground that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense, that the alleged board resolution was not approved by the GSIS board of trustees
because some signatures did not appear in the minutes therefore concluding that there was no qourum.

The Sandiganbayan ruled infavor of Dumlao. Hence, this petition.

Dumlaos contentions are as follows:

1.) Ombudsman's petition will place him in double jeopardy

2.) The Sandiganbayan could not be said to have gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction because it only followed the rule in pre-trial and decided the case on the basis of the facts
stipulated in the pre-trial
3.) The facts agree by the prosecution and respondents Dumlao in the pre-trial was approved by the
Sandiganbayan showed that Dumlao did not commit any crime
4.) Continuing prosecution of Dumlao, excluding the other GSIS trustees constitutes unfair
discrimination and his right to equal protection of the law

1.) Whether or not the court acted in accordance with law and jurisprudence when it dismissed the
criminal case against dumlao and others?
2.) Whether or not the signatures of the majority of the GSIS board of trustee are necessary on the
minutes of the meeting to give force and effect to resolution
3.) Whether or not the validity of the contract is an essential element of violation of section
4.) Whether or not the court acted in accordance with law and jurisprudence when it resolved to
archive the case against respondent La'o?

Petitioner further contended that they were denied due process because Sandiganbayan has dismissed
the case after re-trial before they could present witnesses and offer exhibits.


According to Section 3 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court, insufficiency of evidence is not of the
grounds of motion to quash. Insufficiency is ground for dismissal only after the prosecution rests its
case. In this case, Sandiganbayan deprived the prosecution to present its evidence in doing so violated
the rights to due process.

Sandiganbayan erred in confusing the resolution and the minutes of the meeting which allegedly
approved the lease-purchase agreement. A resolution is distinct and different from the minutes of the

In the issue of double jeopardy, the court did not agree with Dumlao because the first jeopardy has not
yet attached due to the premature dismissal.
In the issue of jurisdiction, in this case there was no error of judgment but a denial of due process
resulting in loss of jurisdiction.

In the issue of discrimination, the court is not convinced because Dumlao was the only one left to be
prosecuted because his co-conspirators are all dead.

The petition was granted.

( Case # 56)

G.R. No. 145391 August 26, 2002


Two vehicles, one driven by respondent Mario Laroya and the other owned by petitioner
Roberto Capitulo and driven by petitioner Avelino Casupanan, figured in an accident. Two cases were
filed, with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Capas , Tarlac.

Laroya filed a criminal case against Casupanan for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property.
On the other hand,Casupanan and Capitulo filed a civil case against Laroya for quasi-delict. When civil
case was filed, the criminal case was then at its preliminary investigation stage. Laroya, defendant in the
civil case, filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of forum-shopping considering the pendency
of the criminal case. The MCTC granted the motion and dismiss the civil case.

Casupanan and Capitulo, filed a motion for reconsideration. They insisted that the civil case is a separate
civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal case. The MCTC denied the motion for
reconsideration. Casupanan and Capitulo, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the RTC and
still it was denied for lack of merit. They f iled a Motion for Reconsideration but RTC denied the same.


1.) Whether or not an accused in a pending criminal case for reckless imprudence can validly
file, simultaneously and independently, a separate civil action for quasi-delict against the
private complainant in the criminal case;

2.) Whether or not there is forum-shopping.


The MCTC dismissed the civil action for quasi-delict on the ground of forum-shopping under Supreme
Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94. MCTC did not state in its order of dismissal that the dismissal
was with prejudice. Thus, the MCTCs dismissal, being silent on the matter, is a dismissal without

Section 1 of Rule 41 provides that an order dismissing an action without prejudice is not appealable.
Clearly, the Capas RTCs order dismissing the petition for certiorari, on the ground that the proper
remedy is an ordinary appeal, is erroneous. The essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple
suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or
successively. It is present when in the two or more cases pending, there is identity of parties, rights of
action and relief sought. There is no forum-shopping in the instant case because the law and the rules
expressly allow the filing of separate civil action which can proceed independently.

Under Section 1 of the Rule 111, what is deemed instituted with the criminal action is only the action
to recover civil liability arising from the crime or ex-delito. All other civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34,
and 2176 of the Civil Code are no longer deemed instituted and may be filed separately and
independently even without reservation.

In no case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission
charged in the criminal action. Clearly, Section 3 of Rule 111 refers to the offended party in the criminal
action, not the accused.