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 two crimes arising from a single accident on July 18, 1950: serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence against Trinidad Elento (Case No. 139) and less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence against Hermenegilda de los Reyes (Case No. 140). Capistrano pleaded not guilty. After trial in Case No. 140, he was convicted and sentenced, and he appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). 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 justice of the peace court for the less serious physical injuries case arising from the same accident. 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 quashing the criminal information.

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), 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 Court further explained that even if the offended party had intervened in the criminal prosecution, such intervention is subject to the control of the fiscal (provincial fiscal or Solicitor General), who has the authority to move for the dismissal of an appeal by the offended party, provided such dismissal does not affect the right to civil indemnity. In this case, the dismissal of the criminal action does not extinguish the civil action already instituted, pursuant to Section 1(d), Rule 107 of the Rules of Court.