People vs. Bocar, 138 SCRA 166, 170 - Chan Robles and ...

efore respondent Court. Respondent Court’s issuance of thequestioned dismissal order was arbitrary, whimsical and capricious, averitable abuse of discretion which this Court cannot permit. chanroblespublishingcompanyMoreover, it is clear from the same transcript that the prosecutionnever had a chance to introduce and offer its evidence formally inaccordance with the Rules of Court (pp. 11-17, rec.). Verily, theprosecution was denied due process. chanroblespublishingcompanyWhere the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecuteand prove its case, its right to due process is thereby violated (Uy vs.Genato, L-37399, 57 SCRA 123 [May 29, 1974]; Serino vs. Zosa, L-33116, 40 SCRA 433 [Aug. 31, 1971]; People vs. Gomez, L-22345, 20SCRA 293 [May 29, 1967]; People vs. Balisacan, L-26376, 17 SCRA1119 [Aug. 31, 1966]). chanroblespublishingcompanyThe cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basicconstitutional rights, courts are ousted of their jurisdiction. Thus, theviolation of the State’s right to due process raises a seriousjurisdictional issue (Gumabon vs. Director of the Bureau of Prisons,L-30026, 37 SCRA 420 [Jan. 30, 1971]) which cannot be glossed overor disregarded at will. Where the denial of the fundamental right ofdue process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that rightis void for lack of jurisdiction (Aducayen vs. Flores, L-30370, [May25, 1973] 51 SCRA 78; Shell Co. vs. Enage, L-30111-12, 49 SCRA 416[Feb. 27, 1973]). Any judgment or decision rendered notwithstandingsuch violation may be regarded as a “lawless thing, which can betreated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever it exhibitsits head” (Aducayen vs. Flores, supra). chanroblespublishingcompanyRespondent Judge’s dismissal order dated July 7, 1967 being null andvoid for lack of jurisdiction, the same does not constitute a properbasis for a claim of double jeopardy (Serino vs. Zosa, supra).The constitutional guarantee is that “no person shall be twice put injeopardy of punishment for the same offense” (Sec. 22, Art. IV, 1973Constitution). Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court (substantiallyreproduced as Section 7, Rule 117 in the 1985 Rules on CriminalProcedure, made effective on January 1, 1985) clarifies the guaranteeas follows: chanroblespublishingcompany