G.R. No. 46038 ; August 10, 1938
VICENTE TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, Judge of first Instance of Rizal, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Vicente Tolentino was charged three times for the same crime of acts of lasciviousness against Angelita Zapanta. The first complaint was filed by the chief of police and was dismissed because it was filed by a third person, not by the offended party or her parents as required by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code. The second complaint was filed by the offended party’s father, Zacarias Zapanta. After Tolentino pleaded not guilty, the court motu proprio dismissed the case, erroneously ruling that the complaint should have been filed by the offended party herself, who was then 19 years old. The third complaint was filed by the offended party herself. Tolentino raised the defense of double jeopardy, arguing that the second dismissal, without his consent, after a valid plea, barred further prosecution. The respondent judge overruled this defense and ordered the trial to proceed.

ISSUE

Whether the second dismissal of the criminal case, ordered by the court without the accused’s consent after a valid plea, constitutes double jeopardy, thereby barring the third prosecution for the same offense.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and ordered the final dismissal of the criminal case. The second complaint filed by the offended party’s father was valid because the offended party was still a minor (19 years old) and under parental authority. The court had jurisdiction over the case. The dismissal of the second case by the court motu proprio, after the accused had pleaded not guilty and without his consent, constituted jeopardy under Section 28 of General Orders No. 58. Therefore, placing the accused on trial for the third time for the same offense violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the prosecution to continue.

AI Generated by Armztrong.