G.R. No. L-2288. March 30, 1950.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MAXIMO MANOLONG, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The accused, Maximo Manolong, was initially charged in the Justice of the Peace Court with less serious physical injuries for inflicting wounds estimated to heal in 20 to 30 days. He pleaded guilty, was convicted, and began serving his sentence. Subsequently, the victim’s injuries did not heal as estimated; they required medical attendance for over 90 days, caused deformity, and resulted in loss of use of the limb. A new information for serious physical injuries was filed. The accused moved to quash, claiming double jeopardy. The Court of First Instance granted the motion, prompting the fiscal to appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the subsequent prosecution for serious physical injuries, after a conviction for less serious physical injuries based on the same act but where the injuries later proved to be more severe, violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

RULING

No. The subsequent prosecution does not constitute double jeopardy. The Court abandoned its previous doctrine in People vs. Tarok and applied the ruling in Melo vs. People. Where, after the first prosecution, a new fact supervenes for which the defendant is responsible, changing the character of the offense and constituting a new and distinct crime, a second prosecution is permissible. Here, the subsequent development of the injuries (requiring over 90 days of healing, causing deformity and loss of use) constituted a supervening fact that transformed the offense into a graver one. The order dismissing the case was revoked, and the trial court was ordered to proceed with the new information, crediting any penalty already served under the first conviction.

AI Generated by Armztrong.