GR L 4448; (February, 1952) (2) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4448 February 27, 1952.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. JOSE CAPISTRANO, accused-appellee; TRINIDAD O. ELENTO, offended party-appellant.
FACTS
Jose Capistrano was charged in the justice of the peace court of Tayabas with serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence (Case No. 139) against Trinidad Elento and less serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence (Case No. 140) against Hermenegilda de los Reyes, arising from a jeepney accident on July 18, 1950. Capistrano pleaded not guilty. After trial, he was convicted in Case No. 140 and sentenced. He appealed this judgment to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Quezon. Meanwhile, Case No. 139 was elevated to the CFI where the provincial fiscal filed an information against Capistrano for a violation of the Motor Vehicle Law (Case No. 10806). Separately, on August 10, 1950, Trinidad Elento filed a civil action for damages against the jeepney owner and Jose Capistrano based on the same accident. In the CFI, Capistrano filed a motion to quash the information in the Motor Vehicle Law case on the ground of double jeopardy, citing his prior conviction in the less serious physical injuries case. The CFI sustained the motion to quash in an order dated November 9, 1950. The provincial fiscal did not appeal this order, but the offended party, Trinidad Elento, appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the offended party-appellant, Trinidad Elento, has the right to appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance dismissing the criminal information on the ground of double jeopardy.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal interposed by the offended party. The Court held that the offended party has no right to appeal in this case because she had filed a separate civil action for damages arising from the same act covered by the criminal information. Citing previous jurisprudence (People vs. Velez and People vs. Olavides), the Court ruled that when an offended party has instituted a separate civil action, she has no special interest in the prosecution of the criminal action and consequently cannot appeal from an order dismissing the information. The reason is that her intervention in the criminal prosecution is subject to the direction and control of the fiscal, and the dismissal of the criminal action does not affect her right to continue the separate civil action already instituted.