G.R. No. L-12629, December 9, 1959.
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Alfredo Araquel, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

On January 30, 1955, a complaint for homicide was filed against Alfredo Araquel in the Justice of the Peace Court of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, for hacking and killing Alberto Pagadian. On July 3, 1956, the Chief of Police moved to amend the complaint, alleging that upon reinvestigation, the crime committed was “homicide under exceptional circumstances” under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court allowed the amendment on July 16, 1956. That same day, Araquel was arraigned under the amended complaint, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to destierro for one year. While Araquel was serving his sentence, the Acting Provincial Fiscal, after being informed of the case, filed an information for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur on February 16, 1957. Araquel moved to quash this new information on the ground of double jeopardy. The trial court sustained the plea and dismissed the information, prompting the Government to appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the information for homicide on the ground of double jeopardy, specifically, whether the Justice of the Peace Court had competent jurisdiction over the case for “homicide under exceptional circumstances” under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, such that Araquel’s conviction therein constituted a valid first jeopardy.

RULING

Yes, the trial court erred. The plea of double jeopardy was erroneously sustained. For a valid claim of double jeopardy, the accused must have been tried before a court of competent jurisdiction. The Justice of the Peace Court of Narvacan lacked jurisdiction over the case. Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code does not define a distinct crime of “homicide under exceptional circumstances.” Instead, it provides a privilege or benefit—amounting to a mitigating or exempting circumstance—that reduces the penalty for a person who, under the specific conditions of surprise and infidelity, kills or injures the offending parties. The act committed remains homicide, parricide, or murder, as the case may be, but the penalty is lowered to destierro (or exemption) due to the exceptional circumstances. Since the essential act is a killing with intent to kill, the case falls beyond the jurisdiction of justice of the peace courts, whose jurisdiction, under Republic Act No. 296 , excludes “assaults where the intent to kill is … evident.” Furthermore, the circumstance under Article 247 is a matter of defense, not an element of the crime that must be pleaded in the information. Therefore, the Justice of the Peace Court acted without jurisdiction. Consequently, Araquel’s conviction therein was void and did not place him in legal jeopardy. The order of dismissal is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of First Instance for further proceedings.