GR L 10702; (January, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10702; January 29, 1958
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SIXTO CABARLES, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Sixto Cabarles was prosecuted in the justice of the peace court of Leon, Iloilo, for violating a municipal ordinance. The information charged that from February 3 to 14, 1956, as owner of an unbranded female carabao impounded for being loose and destroying plants, he willfully and criminally failed and refused to pay the impounding fees of P5 per day, totaling P55. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. At trial, the prosecution presented only the report of the chief of police and the municipal treasurer’s testimony that the carabao was impounded for eleven days and Cabarles refused to pay the fee. After the prosecution rested, the defense verbally moved to “quash the information for insufficiency of evidence,” arguing the ordinance penalized letting loose large cattle, not refusal to pay the impounding fee. The court granted the motion, ordering the amended information dismissed. The provincial fiscal appealed to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. There, the accused filed a motion to quash the appeal and dismiss the case, arguing the prosecution had no authority to appeal and that he had been previously placed in jeopardy. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case. The People appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the present appeal by the prosecution can be entertained, given the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
RULING
No, the appeal cannot be entertained. The dismissal by the justice of the peace after the prosecution had presented its evidence and rested its case constituted an acquittal or discharge of the defendant. Legal jeopardy attaches after arraignment, plea, and the calling of the first witness. Here, the defendant was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and the prosecution presented its complete evidence. The dismissal, even if based on the court’s conclusion of law that the facts alleged and proved did not constitute a violation of the ordinance, was an adjudication on the merits and operated as an acquittal. An appeal by the prosecution from such a dismissal would violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The right of the prosecution to appeal under the rules is limited to orders sustaining a demurrer or overruling a complaint without presentation of evidence, which is not the case here. Therefore, the appeal is overruled and the case is definitively dismissed.