G.R. No. L-45739; April 25, 1939
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SOTERO PEJI BAUTISTA, accused-appellee.

FACTS

The accused, Sotero Peji Bautista, was initially charged in the justice of the peace court of Kawit, Cavite, with perjury (Article 183, Revised Penal Code) for subscribing to a false affidavit. After a preliminary investigation, the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance (CFI). Instead of filing an information for perjury, the provincial fiscal filed an information for false testimony in a criminal case (Article 180, Revised Penal Code), a different offense. The accused pleaded not guilty. During trial, he objected that he had not been given a preliminary investigation for this new charge. The CFI judge ordered a preliminary investigation, which was conducted by the justice of the peace of the provincial capital, who found no probable cause. The case was provisionally dismissed. The fiscal then filed a new information for the same false testimony charge and requested the CFI judge to personally conduct a preliminary investigation, which the judge did, finding probable cause. When trial was about to commence before another CFI judge, the accused moved to dismiss on two grounds: (1) lack of preliminary investigation, and (2) double jeopardy. The CFI granted the motion and dismissed the case. The prosecution appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the accused was denied a preliminary investigation.
2. Whether the dismissal of the first case (Criminal Case No. 6999) after the justice of the peace found no probable cause bars the subsequent prosecution for the same offense on the ground of double jeopardy.

RULING

1. No, the accused was not denied a preliminary investigation. A preliminary investigation was in fact conducted by CFI Judge Pastor M. Endencia on May 20, 1936, who found reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed the crime.
2. No, double jeopardy does not attach. The principle of double jeopardy requires a prior judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction. The justice of the peace of the provincial capital lacked jurisdiction to try the case for false testimony because the prescribed penalty (at least arresto mayor) exceeded his jurisdictional limit (maximum of six months arresto or a P200 fine under Act No. 2131 ). Therefore, his proceedings, including the finding of no probable cause and the subsequent provisional dismissal, were null and void. Since there was no valid trial or judgment by a competent court, the accused was never in legal jeopardy. The order of dismissal is reversed. The case is remanded to the lower court for trial on the merits.

AI Generated by Armztrong.