GR L 2578; (July, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2578 July 31, 1951
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Ladislao Bacolod, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
On September 10, 1948, in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Ladislao Bacolod pleaded guilty to an information charging him with the crime of serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence, committed on February 21, 1948, in Santa Fe, Cebu, by firing a sub-machine gun and hitting Consorcia Pasinio. Subsequently, he was arraigned on a second information for causing a public disturbance on the same date, alleging that he willfully fired a sub-machine gun during a dance held in connection with a town fiesta, causing panic among the people present. His counsel moved to quash this second information on the ground of double jeopardy, citing his prior conviction under the first information. The trial court granted the motion to quash, and the People appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in granting the motion to quash the second information on the ground of double jeopardy.
RULING
Yes, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court reversed the appealed resolution and remanded the record for further proceedings. The two informations do not describe the same offense. The first charges a crime against persons (serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence under Article 263 of the Revised Penal Code), while the second charges an offense against public peace and order (disturbing a public gathering under Article 153). The proof required to establish each offense differs; the second requires additional proof of a willful discharge during a public festivity causing panic, elements not required for the first. A single act may offend two different provisions of law, and conviction under one does not bar prosecution under the other if each provision requires proof of an additional fact that the other does not. The defense of double jeopardy applies only to the same offense, which is not present here. The Court also noted that the precedent of People vs. Tarok had been repudiated in Melo vs. People, aligning with the present ruling.