FACTS:

A complaint of estafa thru falsification of a public document was filed by PSB against spouses Pedrito
and Gloria Bermoy before the Regional Trial Court. This was docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-154193.
They pleaded not guilty on the arraignment. After the prosecution rested its case, the defense filed, with
leave of court, a demurrer to evidence on the ground that the prosecution failed to identify respondent
spouses as the accused. The trial court dismissed the case. While respondent spouses filed a petition for
certiorari which was later denied by the Court of Appeals holding that trial court was correct in granting
the demurrer to evidence for insufficiency of evidence on account of lack of proper identification of the
accused. And even assuming that there was error on the part of the trial court, their acquittal can no
longer be reviewed, be it an appeal or a petition for certiorari. CA claimed that it will be a violation of
the accused’s right against double jeopardy.

ISSUE

W/N the Double Jeopardy applies to this case.

RULING

YES. Under Section 7, Rule 117 ("Section 7") of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure , for double
jeopardy to apply, Section 7 requires the following elements in the first criminal case:

(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 last element, the rule is that a dismissal with the express consent or upon motion of the accused
does not result in double jeopardy. However, this rule is subject to two exceptions, namely, if the
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. Since such dismissal is based on the merits, it
amounts to an acquittal.

In this case the elements required in Section 7 were all present in Criminal Case No. 96-154193. Thus,
the Information for estafa through falsification of a public document against respondent spouses was
sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction. The trial court had jurisdiction over the case
and the persons of respondent spouses. Respondent spouses were arraigned during which they entered
“not guilty” pleas. Finally, Criminal Case No. 96-154193 was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
Consequently, the right not to be placed twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense became
vested on respondent spouses.

Section 2, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court provides that “[a]ny party may appeal from a final judgment
or order, except if the accused would be placed thereby in double jeopardy.”

Thus the courts are barred from entertaining the motion of the petitioner as it seeks an inquiry into the
merits of the dismissal.