G.R. No. L-37837 August 24, 1984
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. LEODEGARIO L. MOGOL, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Br. IV, and EDGARDO CABALLAS, respondents.

FACTS

A criminal complaint for Serious Physical Injuries was filed against Edgardo Caballas in the Municipal Court of Lopez, Quezon. After his plea of not guilty, the prosecution filed an urgent motion to amend the complaint to charge Frustrated Murder, arguing the evidence showed a manifest intent to kill. The defense opposed, citing that amendment after plea for a substantial change in the offense was prohibited. The Municipal Court denied the motion, and the case proceeded to trial. Both parties presented evidence and submitted the case for decision.
Instead of rendering judgment, the Municipal Court, upon reviewing the evidence, concluded it overwhelmingly indicated an intent to kill, supporting a prima facie case for Frustrated Murder. Believing it lacked jurisdiction over this graver offense, the court dismissed the case for Serious Physical Injuries to allow the filing of a new complaint for Frustrated Murder and ordered the records forwarded to the Court of First Instance (CFI). The CFI, however, granted Caballas’s motion to quash the new information, ruling it placed him in double jeopardy. The People petitioned to reverse the CFI’s order.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of the Serious Physical Injuries case and the subsequent filing of an information for Frustrated Murder placed the accused in double jeopardy.

RULING

Yes, the accused was placed in double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s dismissal of the second information. Jeopardy attaches when a valid complaint or information is filed, a court of competent jurisdiction has arraigned the accused, and the accused has pleaded, and the case is dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. Here, all these conditions were met. The Municipal Court dismissed the original case after trial without the accused’s consent, precisely to prosecute him for a more serious offense.
This action finds no justification under procedural rules. Section 13, Rule 110 prohibits amending a complaint to charge a different offense after plea. While Section 12, Rule 119 allows commitment for the proper offense if a mistake is discovered mid-trial, this applies only when the accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or any included offense. Here, the accused could have been validly convicted of Serious Physical Injuries based on the evidence. Therefore, the proper course was for the Municipal Court to decide the case on its merits. The subsequent prosecution for Frustrated Murder based on the same act violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The petition was dismissed.