ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 48348 November 1, 1941 - AQUINO DEL ROSARIO v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, ET AL.

    073 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 48524 November 1, 1941 - MANILA HOTEL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. MANILA HOTEL COMPANY, ET AL.

    073 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 48662 November 6, 1941 - JESUS B. LAVA v. JOSE LOPEZ VITO, ET AL.

    073 Phil 390

  • G.R. No. 48306 November 7, 1941 - PEDRO L. GALANG v. P. M. ENDENCIA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 399

  • G.R. No. 48415 November 7, 1941 - INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, INC., ET AL.

    073 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 48458 November 7, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FIDEL FORTUNO

    073 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 48683 November 8, 1941 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FAR EASTERN BROADCASTING

    073 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 48183 November 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO A. SCHNECKENBURGER, ET AL.

    073 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. 48456 November 12, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. NGO CHAY

    073 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 47813 November 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SIMEON ANTONIO

    073 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 48320 November 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JUAN CACHERO

    073 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 48459 November 18, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FIDEL FORTUNO

    073 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 47805 November 19, 1941 - CONCEPCION PIÑON v. CONSUELO ZAFRA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. 48101 November 22, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE NABORA

    073 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 48123 November 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANACLETO VINEDA

    073 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 48395 November 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ALEJANDRO ENCARNACION

    073 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 48554 November 22, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. BILAANS S. SUNI

    073 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 47688 November 24, 1941 - BASILIA CABRERA v. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC.

    073 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 47988 November 24, 1941 - H. S. FENWICK v. JOAQUlN PARDO DE TAVERA

    073 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 48641 November 24, 1941 - PEDRO GALLEGO v. VICENTE VERRA

    073 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 47887 November 25, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CARMEN DE UMALI

    073 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. 48125 November 25, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FELIX CABADDU

    073 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. 47357 November 26, 1941 - SALVADOR E. IMPERIAL v. CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

    073 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 47775 November 26, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO FIGUEROA

    073 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. 47976 November 26, 1941 - A. P. SEVA Y OTROS v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    073 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 48215 November 26, 1941 - PARSONS HARDWARE CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 48754 November 26, 1941 - EMILIO V. REYES v. APOLONIO R. DIAZ

    073 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. 47804 November 27, 1941 - JUAN CASTILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    073 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. 48147 November 27, 1941 - CLARO CASTRO, ET AL. v. ROSENDO REYES

    073 Phil 492

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 47775   November 26, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO FIGUEROA<br /><br />073 Phil 473

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 47775. November 26, 1941.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANASTACIO FIGUEROA, Defendant-Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULES OF; DOUBLE JEOPARDY; WHEN TWO OFFENSES CONSIDERED THE SAME. — In view of the innovation introduced by section 9, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, the rule now obtaining in this jurisdiction is that an offense shall be considered the same as the other not only when one is identical to the other but also when one necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information. (People v. Tarok, 40 Off. Gaz., 3488.)

    2. ID.; ID.; TRIAL AND CONVICTION FOR ATTEMPTED OR FRUSTRATED OFFENSE. — If, after trial and conviction for an attempted or frustrated offense, there should supervene a consummated offense, conviction or acquittal of the lesser offense is a bar to subsequent prosecution for the consummated offense.


    D E C I S I O N


    LAUREL, J.:


    This is an appeal interposed by the City Fiscal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila declaring the herein defendant- appellee, Anastacio Figueroa, in double jeopardy and forthwith dismissing the information filed against him for homicide.

    It appears that on June 11, 1940, the accused, Anastacio Figueroa, stabbed one Melchor Aguilar with a knife, causing upon the latter several wounds on a vital part of the body (the chest). Figueroa was thereupon prosecuted for the crime of frustrated homicide in the Court of First Instance of Manila, and upon plea of guilty, was on June 20, 1940, sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision correccional to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor. Several days later, however, the victim, Melchor Aguilar, succumbed to his injuries and for that reason the accused was on June 29, 1940, prosecuted anew for the crime of homicide. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and then filed a motion to quash the proceedings on the ground of former conviction or former jeopardy. The trial judge upon consideration of the facts and the merits of the case, declared the accused in double jeopardy and forthwith dismissed the information. To this judgment the City Fiscal excepted and brought the case to this Court for a definitive ruling on the legal question involved.

    The only question presented for adjudication is whether an accused who had previously been convicted of frustrated homicide may subsequently be prosecuted for the consummated offense if death supervenes after conviction on the lesser charge.

    We are in accord with the appellant’s contention that the protection against a second jeopardy is only for the same offense, not for the same act. But the question is: When are two offenses considered the same? In the case of People v. Tarok, G. R. No. 47453, promulgated by this Court on October 9, 1941 (40 Off. Gaz., 3488), we pointed out that in view of the innovation introduced by section 9, Rule 113 of our Rules, the rule now obtaining in this jurisdiction is that an offense shall be considered the same as the other not only when one is identical to the other but also when one necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information. There we said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . The rules of Court recently promulgated by this Court and which took effect on July 1, 1940, prescribe in section 9, Rule 113, thereof as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "‘Sec. 9. Former conviction or acquittal or former jeopardy. — When a defendant shall have been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the defendant, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction, and after the defendant had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the defendant or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information.’

    "That is to say, under the New Rules, one offense shall be considered the same as the other not only when one is identical to the other but also when one necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other. This section 9, Rule 113, is in lieu of sections 26, 27 and 28 of General Orders No. 58. It will be noted that this section 9 is a composite of sections 26 and 28 of General Orders No. 58, with some modifications. It will also be noted that section 27 of General Orders No. 58 has been eliminated.

    "Section 26 of General Orders No. 58 was the main law on jeopardy prior to the promulgation of the Rules of Court. Section 27 merely provides for an exception to the general rule expressed in section 26 and contemplates a situation where jeopardy does not attach. Section 28 is but another defense available to the defendant similar to jeopardy.

    "Under the New Rules, the pleas available to a defendant under sections 26 and 28 of General Orders No. 58 are all considered as pleas of former jeopardy or former conviction or acquittal. The important change, however, lies in the wording of the last part of the New Rules (sec. 9, Rule 113) which was taken from section 26, General Orders No. 58. The original provision of section 26, General Orders No. 68, states: ’the conviction, acquittal, or jeopardy shall be a bar to another information or indictment for the offense charged, or for an attempt to commit the same, or for a frustration thereof, or for any offense necessarily therein included of which he might have been convicted under such complaint or information.’.

    "To our mind, the principle embodied in the New Rules of Court is a clear expression of selection of rule amidst conflicting theories. We take the position that when we amended section 26 of General Orders No. 58 by providing that the conviction or acquittal of the defendant or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for any offense not only necessarily therein included but which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or information, we meant what we have, in plain language, stated. We certainly did not mean to engage in the simple play of words. . . .."

    We observed in that case that "An attempted or frustrated crime is included in the consummated. Both under the General Orders No. 58 and the New Rules of Court, a person convicted of a consummated offense may not be, for the same act, prosecuted for any attempt or frustration thereof. If, after trial and conviction for an attempted or frustrated offense, there should supervene a consummated offense, we express the opinion that conviction or acquittal of the lesser offense is a bar to subsequent prosecution for the consummated offense. . . .."

    The judgment of the trial court herein appealed from, is therefore affirmed, and the information for homicide filed against the defendant-appellee, Anastacio Figueroa, hereby dismissed, with costs de oficio. So ordered.

    Avanceña, Pres., Abad Santos and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    DIAZ, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Upon the same ground expressed in my dissenting opinion in People v. Tarok, 40 Off. Gaz., No. 17, page 3488, I dissent from the opinion of the majority that holds that there is a former jeopardy in the present case.

    MORAN, M., disidente:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Reproduzco aqui mi disidencia formulada y razonada en el asunto de Pueblo contra Tarok, R. G. No. 47453.

    G.R. No. 47775   November 26, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO FIGUEROA<br /><br />073 Phil 473


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED