GR 48344; (November, 1942) (2) (Digest)
G.R. No. 48344 & G.R. No. 48345; November 9, 1942
Case Parties/Title: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AGRIPINO ALVAREZ, defendant-appellant ( G.R. No. 48344 ); THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HIGINO S. PEREZ, ET AL., defendants-appellee. GAUDIOSO LAPORE, complainant-appellant (G.R. No. 48345).
FACTS
1. Appellant Gaudioso Lapore, in his capacity as chief of police, filed two separate complaints in the justice of the peace court of Cauayan, Negros Occidental.
2. The first complaint was against Agripino Alvarez for violating a municipal ordinance penalizing the carrying of firearms in political meetings.
3. The second complaint was against Higino S. Perez and eight others for violating a municipal ordinance penalizing the holding of public meetings for election purposes without a prior permit.
4. The justice of the peace court rendered judgments condemning each defendant to a fine of P50 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
5. The defendants appealed these judgments to the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental.
6. In the Court of First Instance, the provincial fiscal moved for the dismissal of the cases against the defendants before trial, and the motion was granted.
7. The chief of police (Gaudioso Lapore) now appeals from this order of dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the chief of police has the legal authority to appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance dismissing criminal cases, which were originally filed by him for violations of municipal ordinances, after the provincial fiscal moved for their dismissal.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the chief of police has no legal authority to appeal the dismissal order. The order of dismissal is affirmed.
The Court’s reasoning is as follows:
1. Lack of Authority to Appeal: No legal authority permits a chief of police to appeal a case already dismissed by the Court of First Instance upon motion of the provincial fiscal. While a chief of police is authorized to file criminal complaints for violations of municipal ordinances, his control over the case ceases upon the actual intervention of the provincial fiscal or upon the elevation of the case to the Court of First Instance. From that point, the provincial fiscal assumes full control and takes charge of the prosecution.
2. Not an Injured Party: Although an injured person is permitted by law to intervene in appropriate cases, a chief of police is not such an injured person. He is in no way personally damaged by the commission of the offense.
3. Double Jeopardy: Citing People vs. Daylo (54 Phil., 862), the dismissal by a Court of First Instance of a criminal case appealed from a justice of the peace court (which had jurisdiction to try and decide it) is equivalent to an acquittal of the defendant. Therefore, an appeal from the order of dismissal would constitute double jeopardy.
Disposition: The order of dismissal is affirmed, with costs against appellant Gaudioso Lapore.