G.R. No. 2062 : April 25, 1905
THE UNITED STATES and CARLOS MAGALONA, complainants-appellants, vs. AGUSTINA BARRERA, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
In March 1902, Agustina Barrera filed a complaint for theft against Carlos Magalona before a justice of the peace in Occidental Negros. Magalona was prosecuted in the Court of First Instance and was acquitted. The judgment of acquittal contained a clause stating that the complaint was false and reserved to Magalona his right of action against Barrera. Subsequently, Magalona filed a complaint against Barrera charging her with the crime of false accusation under Article 326 of the Penal Code, attaching a copy of the acquittal judgment. Barrera demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The lower court sustained the demurrer and ordered Barrera’s discharge and the exoneration of her bail. Magalona appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether a criminal prosecution for false accusation under Article 326 of the Penal Code can proceed based solely on a judgment of acquittal that declares the original complaint false but does not contain an express order from the court directing the prosecuting attorney to proceed against the complaining witness for such false accusation.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the case. The Court held that Article 326 of the Penal Code requires that when a court, in dismissing a case, is of the opinion that the accusation is false, it must expressly order the prosecuting attorney to proceed against the complaining witness for a violation of said article. This directive is an integral part of the offense defined in Article 326. In the theft case against Magalona, the court did not issue such an order; it merely reserved Magalona’s right to a civil action. Consequently, the essential prerequisite for a criminal prosecution for false accusation was absent. The Court declined to rule on the propriety of the appeal in light of the Kepner doctrine, finding the lower court’s order correct on the merits. The order was affirmed with costs against the appellant.