G.R. No. L-13315; April 27, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BUENAVENTURA BULING, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On December 7, 1956, the accused Buenaventura Buling was charged in the Justice of the Peace Court of Cabalian, Leyte, with the crime of less serious physical injuries for inflicting wounds on Isidro Balaba. The complaint alleged the wounds would require medical attendance for 10 to 15 days and incapacitate Balaba for the same period. The accused pleaded guilty and on December 8, 1956, was convicted and sentenced to one month and one day of arresto mayor and to pay damages. He served the sentence fully. However, Balaba’s injuries did not heal within the estimated period. Consequently, on February 20, 1957, the Provincial Fiscal filed an information in the Court of First Instance of Leyte charging the accused with serious physical injuries, alleging the wounds required medical attendance and incapacitated Balaba for 1½ to 2½ months. After trial, the accused was found guilty of serious physical injuries and sentenced accordingly. The accused appealed, contending the first prosecution and conviction barred the second.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution and conviction of the accused for less serious physical injuries bars a second prosecution for serious physical injuries based on the same act.

RULING

No, the second prosecution is barred by double jeopardy. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused. The Court applied the general rule on double jeopardy, finding that no new fact supervened after the first prosecution that changed the character of the offense. The first medical examination on December 10, 1956, certified the injury as an incised wound requiring 10-15 days to heal. A second examination on January 18, 1957, including an X-ray, revealed an old oblique fracture, indicating a longer healing period. The Court held this fracture must have existed at the time of the first examination; its later discovery was due to a superficial initial examination, not a new supervening fact. The case was distinguished from People vs. Manolong, where a subsequent deformity and loss of use of a member, not apparent initially, constituted a supervening fact. Here, the condition (the fracture) existed from the outset. Therefore, the rule in Melo vs. People—that a supervening fact creating a new offense prevents double jeopardy—did not apply. The Court cautioned prosecuting officers to conduct thorough medical examinations before filing informations for physical injuries to avoid such issues.