G.R. No. L-6277 February 26, 1954
JUAN D. CRISOLOGO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. PABLO VILLALOBOS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Juan D. Crisologo, a lieutenant colonel in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, was accused of treason in an information filed in the People’s Court on March 12, 1946. Before he could be brought under that court’s jurisdiction, he was indicted on January 13, 1947, before a military court for violation of the Articles of War ( Commonwealth Act No. 408 ). The military indictment contained three charges: the first and third were for treason (giving aid to the enemy and urging USAFFE members to surrender), and the second was for having certain civilians killed in time of war. The military court found him innocent of the first and third charges but guilty of the second, sentencing him to life imprisonment on May 8, 1947. After the abolition of the People’s Court, the treason case was transferred to the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, where the information was amended. Petitioner moved to quash, challenging the court’s jurisdiction and pleading double jeopardy due to his prior military court sentence. The motion was denied, and after he pleaded not guilty, trial proceeded. He then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition to stop the trial and dismiss the case.

ISSUE

Whether the decision of the military court constitutes a bar to further prosecution for the same offense in the civil courts, thereby placing petitioner in double jeopardy.

RULING

Yes. The petition is granted, and the criminal case for treason in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga is ordered dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the sentence by the military court bars further prosecution for the same offense in the civil court. The offense charged in both courts is treason, a continuous and single offense, notwithstanding additional overt acts specified in the amended civil court information. The military court had jurisdiction because it acquired custody of the petitioner before the civil court did, despite the earlier filing of the information in the People’s Court. Both courts derive power from the same sovereignty. Following precedents (U.S. vs. Tubig and Grafton vs. U.S.), where a person has been tried by a competent court-martial, he cannot be tried again for the same offense in a civil court of the same sovereignty. The rule allowing prosecution by both civil and military authorities applies only when the act constitutes two distinct offenses under different sovereignties, which is not the case here.