TIU VS.

PEOPLE
586 SCRA 118 GR No. 162370
FACTS
The case resulted from a criminal charge for slight physical injuries filed by Edgardo Postanes
against Remigio Pasion. On the other hand, David Tiu (Tiu) filed a criminal charge for grave
threats against Postanes. Upon motion of Pasion, the two criminal cases were consolidated and
jointly heard before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City.
After trial, Metropolitan Trial Court rendered judgment dismissing both charges on ground of
insufficiency of evidence.
Tiu filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Metropolitan Trial Court.
Afterwards, Tiu, filed a petition for certiorari with the RTC of Pasay City. The RTC of Pasay
City rendered a decision declaring void the judgment of the Metropolitan Trial Court and ordered
the case to be remanded in the MTC. Postanes moved for reconsideration, which was denied.
Postanes filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari challenging the decision of the
RTC. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC Decision and affirmed the dismissal of the two
cases. In annulling the RTC decision, the Court of Appeals held that the RTC has granted upon
the State, through the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the right to appeal the decision of
acquittal which right the government does not have.
ISSUE
Whether or not there was Double Jeopardy when Tiu filed a petition for certiorari questioning
the acquittal of Postanes by the Metropolitan Trial Court.
HELD
YES. The court rules in the affirmative.
The Court finds that the petition is defective since it was not filed by the Solicitor General.
Instead, it was filed by Tiu, the private complainant, through his counsel.
General rule provides that only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions on behalf of
the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal proceedings before
this Court and the Court of Appeals.
Tiu, the offended party in the criminal case is without legal personality to appeal the decision of
the Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court. Nothing shows that the Office of the Solicitor
General represents the People in this appeal before the Court. On this ground alone, the SC says
the petition must not prosper.
However, the Court opted to resolve the query of double jeopardy.
All the elements of double jeopardy were present given the following (1) the Information filed in
the criminal case against Postanes was sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction;
(2) the Metropolitan Trial Court had jurisdiction over the criminal case; (3) Postanes was
arraigned and entered a non-guilty plea; and (4) the Metropolitan Trial Court dismissed the
Criminal Case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence amounting to an acquittal from which
no appeal can be had.
Clearly, for the court to grant the petition and order the Metropolitan Trial Court to reconsider its
decision, just what the RTC ordered the Metropolitan Trial Court to do, is to transgress the
Constitutional proscription not to put any person twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense.