00:00Given the foregoing, the Court accepts and confirms the prosecution's manifestation.
00:06Articles 1, 3, and 4 from this point forward are deemed withdrawn subject to the following rulings and orders that
00:13this Court hereby issues as follows.
00:16Number one, Articles 1 and 4 are deemed withdrawn with prejudice as against the respondent.
00:24Congress must never be light-handed or nonchalant in initiating and prosecuting articles of impeachment.
00:32Impeachment is not a charge that may simply be filed, pursued through the presentation of evidence, and thereafter withdrawn without
00:41the respondent's consent.
00:44It is a grave constitutional process that affects not only the respondent but also the stability of government, the orderly
00:51conduct of public affairs, public confidence in constitutional institutions, and the nation as a whole, not to mention the expenses
00:59associated and related to this process.
01:02It likewise demands substantial time and resources from the impeachment court, the parties, and the public as well.
01:09Here, the prosecution has been afforded the opportunity to present its case and has consumed the Court's time and institutional
01:16resources in doing so.
01:18Having elected to withdraw the Articles after arresting its case, the prosecution must therefore accept the legal consequences of that
01:27withdrawal.
01:27The House of Representatives may not treat the impeachment process as a mere opportunity to file, withdraw, and subsequently revive
01:36substantially the same constitutional accusations at will.
01:40As explained in Bala Eres v. Espanto, GR 247844, an action by the court with prejudice is treated as an
01:51adjudication on the marriage that finally disposes of the controversy and bars a later action involving the same cause.
01:58Therefore, the effect of a withdrawal with prejudice means that Articles 1 and 4 may not be revived in this
02:07trial, refiled, reprosecuted, or transmitted anew against the same respondent during the same term and in this 20th Congress,
02:18when founded upon the same allegations, when founded upon the same allegations, the same allegations, the same ultimate factual transaction,
02:26and the same constitutional accusation, regardless of any change in the wording, caption, theory, arrangement of specifications, or composition of
02:36the prosecutorial panel.
02:37The test that the court will apply is substantive and not merely verbal, despite changes in phrasing or legal characterization.
02:46A later article is the same if it seeks the removal of the respondent during the same term for the
02:52same operative conduct and ultimate constitutional charge during this 20th Congress.
02:59This bar applies only to impeachment as a process of constitutional removal, however.
03:04It does not grant immunity, nor does it constitute double jeopardy against the prosecution for any underlying conduct.
03:13It does not bar criminal, civil, administrative, electoral, disciplinary, or other professional proceedings in accordance with law,
03:21each of which is governed by its own jurisdictional, substantive, evidentiary, and procedural rules.
03:27This distinction is consistent with Estrada v. Descierto, GR No. 1467-10-15,
03:36where the court rejected an attempt to use an aborted impeachment proceeding as a bar to subsequent criminal prosecution.
