GR 108811; (May, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 108811 May 31, 1994
APOLINARIO GONZALES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and IMELDA CARATAO, respondents.
FACTS
A criminal complaint for qualified seduction against petitioner Apolinario Gonzales was filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Obando, Bulacan. After the prosecution and defense presented evidence, the prosecution moved to commit the accused to answer a charge for rape, as the evidence indicated rape was committed. The MTC, finding no sufficient evidence for qualified seduction and lacking jurisdiction over rape, dismissed the case. Subsequently, six separate informations for rape were filed against Gonzales in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. During the trial of these rape cases, on March 30, 1992, the RTC provisionally dismissed the cases upon motion of the defense, citing the complainant’s repeated absences and the accused’s right to a speedy trial. On the same day, private complainant filed a motion for reconsideration, explaining her absence. On June 15, 1992, the RTC granted the motion and set aside the provisional dismissal. Gonzales filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC’s order. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the RTC’s order setting aside the provisional dismissal of the rape cases and in ruling that the dismissal of the prior qualified seduction case did not constitute double jeopardy.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals. The dismissal of the qualified seduction case by the MTC was proper under Section 11, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court, as a mistake in charging the proper offense was manifest, and the court lacked jurisdiction over rape. This dismissal did not place the petitioner in double jeopardy because: (1) the MTC did not have jurisdiction to try the offense of rape; and (2) the dismissal was provisional and with the express consent of the accused. Furthermore, rape and qualified seduction are not identical offenses; they differ substantially in their elements. The Court also found no violation of the right to speedy trial, as the proceedings were not unreasonably delayed, with only two postponements in the same month. The appealed decision was affirmed.