Article 303, Subparagraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly provides that a dismissal judgment should be entered for cases already being litigated by public or private prosecution and then relitigated before the same court. When the judgment of a prior litigation is not finalized after the judgment of the later litigation is rendered but before the later judgment is finalized, the judgment of the later litigation shall be dismissed in accordance with the process of extraordinary appeal.

　　　 Res judicata is a fundamental principle of our Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 303, Subparagraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly provides that a dismissal judgment should be entered for cases already being litigated by public or private prosecution and then relitigated before the same court. As long as the same case has been legally prosecuted by public or private prosecution, it cannot be relitigated in the same court. A procedural judgment should then be entered to terminate the latter action. Article 302, Subparagraph 1, of the same Act provides that a dismissal judgment shall be entered on a case whose final and binding judgment has already been rendered. Considering that this provision expressly provides that a "final and binding judgment has already been rendered," doubtless it is applicable only when a final and binding judgment on the merits has been rendered on the case. Consequently, although a judgment on the merits of the later litigation is finalized prior to the earlier judgment of the former litigation, since that later litigation judgment is not yet finalized at the time the earlier judgment is rendered, that earlier judgment, therefore, is not legally bound by the later judgment as there is not yet the effect of stare decisis. As a result, there is no ground for the application of Article 302, Subparagraph 1, by issuing a dismissal judgment, and the earlier judgment on the merit does not become unlawful either even when the later judgment becomes finalized first. Thus, the later litigation, in accordance with Article 303, Subparagraph 2, of the same Act, should not have been accepted; its judgment on the merit may hardly be considered lawful, and a writ of dismissal should be issued in accordance with the process of extraordinary appeal if that judgment is indeed finalized.