G.R. No. 33094 , September 3, 1930
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. PRIMITIVO DAYLO

FACTS

Primitivo Daylo was charged with estafa in seventeen separate informations. Thirteen cases were initially filed before the Justice of the Peace of Burawen, where he was convicted. He appealed these convictions to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Leyte. While the appeals were pending, the provincial fiscal, without Daylo’s knowledge or consent, filed motions to dismiss the thirteen appealed cases to consolidate them into three new informations. The CFI granted the motions. One of the new consolidated cases was Criminal Case No. 8087, which included seven of the appealed cases (Nos. 8089, 8090, 8091, 8135, 8136, 8191, and 8193). When Case No. 8087 was called for trial, Daylo raised the defense of double jeopardy, arguing that he had already been tried and convicted for the same offenses in the justice of the peace court. The trial court overruled his defense, convicted him of estafa, and sentenced him. Daylo appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of the appealed cases by the CFI and the subsequent filing of a new consolidated information (Case No. 8087) for the same offenses constitute double jeopardy.

RULING

Yes, the dismissal of the appealed cases and the filing of a new consolidated information placed Daylo in double jeopardy. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and ordered the dismissal of Case No. 8087.

The Court held that when Daylo appealed his convictions from the justice of the peace court to the CFI, the judgments of conviction were vacated, and the CFI acquired appellate jurisdiction for a new trial. The dismissal of the appealed cases by the CFI, upon the fiscal’s motion, amounted to an acquittal because it left no judgment to execute against Daylo. Consequently, the CFI lost its appellate jurisdiction over those cases.

By filing a new information (Case No. 8087) that included the same offenses from the dismissed appealed cases, the prosecution exposed Daylo to a second conviction for the same crimes. This violated the rule against double jeopardy, as Daylo had already been tried and convicted by a competent court (the justice of the peace) and was effectively absolved by the dismissal of the appeals. The Court cited the doctrine in United States vs. Walsh that a second prosecution for the same offense, after a prior conviction, constitutes double jeopardy.

Thus, the dismissal of a criminal case on appeal from the justice of the peace to the CFI is equivalent to an acquittal, and filing another information for the same offense places the accused in double jeopardy.