G.R. No. L-5610 February 17, 1954
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JESUS BANGALAO, FILEMON JUBAHIB, FRANCISCO LOVENO AND TITO ESTACA, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

A complaint was filed in the Justice of the Peace Court of Tagbilaran, Bohol, by Abundia Palban, mother of the offended party Josita (Rosita) Palban, a minor. The complaint alleged that the accused, by means of force and intimidation, succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. When the case reached the Court of First Instance, the provincial fiscal filed an information for rape, alleging that Rosita Palban was “a minor and demented girl” and that the defendants “successively had sexual intercourse with her by means of force and against her will,” resulting in less serious physical injuries. During the trial, the presiding judge, Hon. Hipolito Alo, granted a defense motion to quash the information for lack of jurisdiction. The judge reasoned that the complaint alleged rape through force and intimidation, while the information alleged rape based on the victim’s insanity (being a demented girl), constituting a different manner of committing the crime. He held that the proceedings were not initiated by the proper person under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, following the doctrine in People vs. Oso. The provincial fiscal appealed the order of dismissal. The accused-appellees argued that even if the dismissal was erroneous, the appeal would place them in double jeopardy.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction based on a variance between the allegations in the original complaint (force and intimidation) and the information filed by the fiscal (victim being a minor and demented), and whether the fiscal’s appeal is barred by double jeopardy.

RULING

The Supreme Court held that the lower court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. The ruling in People vs. Oso was misapplied, as that case involved two different crimes (forcible abduction in the complaint vs. rape in the information). Here, both the complaint and the information charged the same crime of rape, albeit alleging different modes of commission. Jurisdiction over the crime of rape attached upon the filing of the original complaint. A change in the allegations regarding the manner of commission does not divest the court of the jurisdiction it has already acquired. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the fiscal’s appeal because it would place the accused in double jeopardy. Under Section 2, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court, the People cannot appeal if the defendant would be placed in double jeopardy. Since the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to try the case upon the filing of the complaint, its order of dismissal, even if erroneous, bars a further appeal. The appeal was dismissed, with costs de oficio.