G.R. No. L-45855; May 10, 1939
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. TI YEK JUAT (alias KIM SENG), defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The defendant was initially charged with theft in Criminal Case No. 45201. After his bond was confiscated for failure to appear at arraignment, the case was temporarily dismissed on August 27, 1934, as he remained at large. On May 5, 1937, a new information for the same theft was filed against him in Criminal Case No. 54296. However, on April 29, 1937, the City Fiscal moved to revive the first case (No. 45201), which the court granted on May 7, 1937. The defendant was arraigned in the revived first case on June 14, 1937, pleaded not guilty, and then, upon the fiscal’s motion, that first case was dismissed because the second case had already been commenced. Two days later, on June 16, 1937, the defendant was arraigned in the second case (No. 54296), pleaded not guilty, and raised the defense of double jeopardy. The trial court sustained the defense and dismissed the information in the second case. The People appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the defendant’s constitutional right against double jeopardy was violated when he was charged anew in the second case after having been arraigned and having pleaded in the first case, which was subsequently dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the defendant’s right against double jeopardy was violated. The Court, citing People vs. Ylagan, reiterated that a defendant is in legal jeopardy when placed on trial: (1) in a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) upon a valid complaint or information; (3) after arraignment; and (4) after pleading to the information. Here, when the defendant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty in the revived first case (No. 45201) on June 14, 1937, he was placed in first jeopardy. His subsequent arraignment and plea in the second case (No. 54296) on June 16, 1937, for the identical offense, constituted a second jeopardy, which is prohibited under Section 1(20), Article III of the Constitution . The order of dismissal was affirmed.