G.R. No. L-7390; April 30, 1955
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. AMADA REYES DE HERNANDEZ, et al., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On April 24, 1953, an information for qualified theft was filed in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City (Case No. Q-972). Anselmo Reyes y Barican was charged as principal, and Amada Reyes de Hernandez, Solano Hernandez, Ricardo Reyes, and Teofilo Reyes were charged as accessories after the fact for allegedly concealing stolen jewelry received from the principal accused. The principal accused, Anselmo Reyes, pleaded guilty to simple theft and was sentenced. The alleged accessories pleaded not guilty and filed a motion to quash, claiming exemption from criminal liability under Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code due to their relationship (as brothers and sisters) to the principal accused, submitting evidence of such relationship. The prosecution then moved to amend the information to add an allegation that these accused profited from the effects of the crime. The accused moved to withdraw their motion to quash and objected to the amendment, arguing it was a material change not allowable after plea without their consent. The court denied the motion to amend, holding it would substantially affect the fundamental rights of the accused, who were exempt under the original information due to their relationship. The court did not act on the motion to withdraw the motion to quash. The prosecution then moved to dismiss the case against the alleged accessories, with a reservation of the right to file another information. The court granted the dismissal on August 26, 1953, without ruling on the reservation. A new information was filed (Case No. Q-1064), essentially reproducing the first but adding an allegation that the accused received the jewelry with intent of gain and kept them for the purpose of profiting. The accused moved to quash this second information on the ground of double jeopardy. The trial court granted the motion. The prosecution appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the second information (Case No. Q-1064) on the ground of double jeopardy.

RULING

Yes, the trial court erroneously sustained the plea of double jeopardy. The order of dismissal is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The plea of double jeopardy was not valid for three reasons: First, the accused filed a motion to quash in the first case, and the trial court, by denying the prosecution’s motion to amend, virtually sustained it, forcing the prosecution to dismiss; thus, the first case was not terminated without the express consent of the accused. Second, the defendants themselves successfully contended that the first information was insufficient to charge them with any criminal offense due to their relationship with the principal accused; for jeopardy to attach, the information must be sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction. Third, the accused are estopped from now claiming that the first information was sufficient to place them in jeopardy after having previously argued it was insufficient. Their case falls within the spirit of the rule in People vs. Acierto, which prevents a party from taking inconsistent positions to mock justice.