GR 40574; (December, 1934) (Digest)
G.R. No. 40574 , December 29, 1934
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. HILARIA CABERO, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Hilaria Cabero was charged with perjury for allegedly filing a false sworn criminal complaint (denuncia) before the Justice of the Peace of Caloocan, accusing Teresa Santos of physical injuries. During trial, the prosecution moved for a continuance due to the absence of two principal witnesses. The trial court, instead of ruling on the motion, dismissed the information sua sponte (on its own motion). The court held that the facts alleged did not constitute a violation of Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (on false testimony in other cases) and, treating it under Article 180 (on false testimony in judicial proceedings), found it insufficient because no judgment had been rendered in the underlying criminal case. The prosecution appealed the dismissal order.
ISSUE
1. Whether the prosecution can appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing the information sua sponte.
2. Whether the information sufficiently alleges a violation of Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.
3. Whether further proceedings would place the accused in double jeopardy.
RULING
1. Yes, the appeal is proper. Under Section 44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the government may appeal from an order dismissing an information. The trial court’s action was not based on a demurrer or motion by the defense but was an unauthorized sua sponte dismissal. The Code does not grant the trial court the power to dismiss a case on its own motion in such a manner, making the order appealable.
2. Yes, the information sufficiently alleges a crime. The information alleges that Cabero made a false sworn statement on a material matter before a person authorized to administer oaths, knowing it to be false. This squarely falls under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, which covers false testimony not given in a judicial proceeding. The trial court erred in requiring elements under Article 180, which applies to false testimony in judicial proceedings.
3. No, double jeopardy does not attach. The trial court’s dismissal order was issued without authority and is therefore null and void. Jeopardy had not validly attached because the proceedings were not lawfully terminated. Furthermore, a plea of double jeopardy is an affirmative defense that must be raised in the trial court.
The order of dismissal was set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for proper proceedings. Costs were imposed on the appellee.
AI Generated by Armztrong.