GR L 2600; (March, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2600; March 30, 1950
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PEDRO MARAPAO, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
A complaint for slight physical injuries was filed against Pedro Marapao in the justice of the peace court. After the prosecution presented its evidence and the trial was continued, the court dismissed the case upon the defense’s motion due to the fiscal’s absence when trial resumed. The fiscal appeared shortly after and protested, leading the court to reconsider and reinstate the case, setting a date for the defense to present evidence. Before that date, the defense moved to set aside the reinstatement, arguing it placed the accused in double jeopardy. The court granted the motion and finally dismissed the case. Subsequently, the fiscal filed a new information in the Court of First Instance charging Marapao with assault upon a person in authority based on the same facts, but with the additional allegation that the injuries were inflicted due to resentment against the victim for performing election duties. The Court of First Instance dismissed this new case on the ground of double jeopardy, prompting the Government’s appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the dismissal of the first case (for slight physical injuries) upon the defendant’s own motion bars a subsequent prosecution for assault upon a person in authority based on the same facts, on the ground of double jeopardy.
RULING
No. The defense of double jeopardy is not available. Under Section 9, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, a dismissal bars another prosecution only if it is made without the express consent of the defendant. Here, the first case was dismissed upon the defendant’s own request (motion). Since the defendant actively sought the dismissal, he cannot later claim that the dismissal placed him in jeopardy. Therefore, the order of dismissal by the Court of First Instance is revoked, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
AI Generated by Armztrong.