Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > September 1959 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12102 September 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO BAO

106 Phil 243:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12102. September 29, 1959.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BENEDICTO BAO, Defendant-Appellee.

Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and Solicitor Isidro C. Borromeo for Appellant.

Vicente M. Blanco for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; DISMISSAL OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS; VARIANCE BETWEEN ALLEGATIONS IN THE INFORMATION AND THE EVIDENCE; EFFECT. — The dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of variance between the allegations in the information and the evidence amounts to an acquittal. (People v. Opemia, Et Al., 98 Phil., 698; 52 Off. Gaz., 1951)

2. ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL AFTER PROSECUTION HAS RESTED ITS CASE; WHEN IT AMOUNTS TO ACQUITTAL. — The dismissal of the action for serious oral defamation after the prosecution has rested its case and upon motion of the defendant on the grounds that the facts alleged in the information donot constitute the crime charged and that the evidence presented is not sufficient to establish his guilt amounts to an acquittal or discharge of the defendant, from which the prosecution cannot appeal without violating the constituttional provision on double jeopardy. Such dismissal constitutes a bar to another prosecution not only for the offense charged but also "for any offense which necessarily includes (it) or is necessarily included" therein (Section 9, rule 113, Rules of Court).

3. ID.; ID.; DOUBLE JEOPARDY; APPLICATION NOT PRECLUDED BY FAILURE OF ACCUSED TO RAISE QUESTION ON APPEAL. — Although the accused filed no brief on appeal raising the question of double jeopardy, nevertheless the provision of section 2 of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court that "The People of the Philippines cannot appeal if the defendant would be placed thereby in double jeopardy," must be given force and effect. (People v. Ferrer 100 Phil., 124; 55 Off. Gaz., [4] 620).

4. ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL UPON MOTION OF ACCUSED; WHEN DOUBLE JEOPARDY ATTACHES. — The fact that the order of dismissal complained of was upon motion or at the instigation of the accused will not precluded the application of the principle of double jeopardy when such dismissal amounts to an acquittal.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:


This is an appeal by the Government from an order of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, dismissing upon defendant- appellee’s motion, the case against him for serious oral defamation.

The record reveals that on May 13, 1955, Benedicto Bao was charged with oral defamation in the Justice of the Peace Court of Aloran, Misamis Occidental, in a complaint filed by the offended party, Maximina Banguis. The said complaint was later amended to charge the crime of serious oral defamation. The defendant having waived his right to the preliminary investigation and the justice of the peace court being of the opinion that the case did not fall within its jurisdiction, the record of the case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance of the province for trial on the merits. In that court, the provincial fiscal filed the following information:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses Benedicto Ba-o of the crime of Serious Oral Defamation, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 22nd day of April, 1955, and for sometime prior thereto, in the barrio of Casusan, municipality of Aloran, province of Misamis Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with the deliberate intent of bringing one Maximina Banguis into discredit, disrepute and public contempt, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and publicly speak and utter against the latter the following insulting and defamatory words and expressions, to wit: ‘Si Maximina Banguis, aking nakuha’ (Maximina Banguis was carnally taken by me) and other words of similar import and meaning implying that the offended party is no longer a virgin despite her being a single woman, thus exposing her to public contempt, disrepute and ridicule, to her material and moral damage in the amount of not less than P1,000.00.

"Contrary to Law."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not guilty and the case was tried. After the prosecution had rested its case, the accused, thru his counsel, filed a motion to quash on the grounds that the facts alleged in the information did not constitute the crime of serious oral defamation and that the evidence presented was insufficient to convict him of any criminal offense. The prosecution opposed the motion to quash, but the trial court, in its order of November 3, 1956 — finding that the evidence adduced by the prosecution established the crime of intriguing against honor penalized by article 364 of the Revised Penal Code, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court to try, and not oral defamation as defined and punished under article 358 of the same code — granted the motion and dismissed the case with costs de oficio. In that same order the court directed the provincial fiscal to file the corresponding action before the proper justice of the peace court. The prosecution moved for reconsideration of the order but the motion having been denied, it appealed directly to this Court.

We believe the appeal is bereft of merit.

This Court has already held that the dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of variance between the allegations in the information and the evidence amounts to an acquittal. (People v. Opemia, Et Al., 98 Phil., 698; 52 Off. Gaz., 1951.) And while there appears to be merit in the Solicitor General’s contention that the offense of intriguing against honor is necessarily included in the crime of serious oral defamation charged in the information and therefore the accused could be validly convicted by the trial court of that crime under the same information, the fact remains that the case was dismissed after the prosecution had rested its case and upon motion by the defendant on the grounds that the facts alleged in the information did not constitute the crime charged and that, at any rate, the evidence presented was not sufficient to establish his guilt. This dismissal, likewise, amounts to an acquittal or discharge of the defendant, from which the prosecution cannot appeal without doing violence to the constitutional provision on double jeopardy. (People v. Cabarles, 54 Off. Gaz., 7051, and the cases cited therein.) It goes without saying that such dismissal constitutes a bar to another prosecution not only for the offense charged, but also "for any offense which necessarily includes (it) or is necessarily included" therein. (Section 9, Rule 113, Rules of Court; People v. Martinez, 55 Phil., 6; People v. Besa, 74 Phil., 57; People v. Diaz, 94 Phil., 714.

The accused herein filed no brief on appeal raising the question of double jeopardy. Nevertheless, the provision of section 2 of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court that "The People of the Philippines cannot appeal if the defendant would be placed thereby in double jeopardy," must be given force and effect. (People v. Ferrer, 100 Phil., 124; 52 Off. Gaz., [4] 620.) And neither may the fact that the order of dismissal complained of was upon motion or at the instigation of the accused preclude the application of the principle of double jeopardy. In several cases where the trial court’s order of dismissal amounted to an acquittal, this Court sustained the theory of double jeopardy despite the fact that the dismissal was secured upon motion of the accused. (People v. Robles, 105 Phil., 1016; 57 Off. Gaz., 61; People v. Tacneng Et. Al., G. R. No. L-12082, April 30, 1959, and the cases cited therein; see also People v. Cabarles, supra, and People v. Opemia Et. Al., supra.)

Wherefore, the appeal filed on behalf of the Government must be, as it is hereby, dismissed with costs de oficio.

Paras, C.J. Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia and Barrera, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1959 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12826 September 10, 1959 - LUCINA EVANGELISTA v. PEDRO DEUDOR

    106 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-11923 September 18, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO BARROSO

    106 Phil 177

  • G.R. Nos. L-137727-3 September 18, 1959 - PRIMO PANTI v. JUAN ALBERTO

    106 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-13919 September 18, 1959 - AGUSTIN PARAISO v. JESUS CAMON

    106 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. L-12152 September 22, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISOSTOMO ABONALES

    106 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-13119 September 22, 1959 - RICARDO TANTONGCO v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA

    106 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-10923 September 23, 1959 - CEFERINO INCIONG v. MIGUEL TOLENTINO

    106 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-11803 September 23, 1959 - CHAN LAI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-14233 September 23, 1959 - RAFAEL PASTORIZA v. DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

    106 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-13371 September 24, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGATON SALAZAR

    106 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. L-13408 September 24, 1959 - LO KIO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. L-13665 September 24, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE BUSTAMANTE

    106 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-10940 September 25, 1959 - AMPANG TAN v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    106 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-13000 September 25, 1959 - GAUDENCIO D. DEMAISIP v. COURT OF APPEALS

    106 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. L-12102 September 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO BAO

    106 Phil 243

  • G.R. Nos. L-12812-13 September 29, 1959 - FILIPINAS COLLEGES v. MARIA GARCIA TIMBANG

    106 Phil 247

  • Adm. Case No. 225 September 30, 1959 - ANITA CABRERA v. FRANCISCO G. AGUSTIN

    106 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-9854 September 30, 1959 - LEON VELEZ v. RAMON O. NOLASCO

    106 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-10374 September 30, 1959 - GAVINA PEREZ v. JOSE C. ZULUETA

    106 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. L-10677 September 30, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME CANARE

    106 Phil 270

  • G.R. Nos. 11113 & L-11134 September 30, 1959 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ILAGAN AND ALEJANDRINO

    106 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. L-11751 September 30, 1959 - CONCEPCION VDA. DE OPINION v. SIMPLICIO BILLONES

    106 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-12181 September 30, 1959 - LUCIO R. ILDEFONSO v. ERNESTO Y. SIBAL

    106 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-12205 September 30, 1959 - FORTUNATO MILLARE v. ISIDRO MILLARE

    106 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. L-13014 September 30, 1959 - JOSE RUEDA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

    106 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-13209 September 30, 1959 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    106 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. L-13548 September 30, 1959 - SALVADOR LACUNA v. MACARIO M. OFILADA

    106 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-13712 September 30, 1959 - SERAFIN G. DAVID v. JOSE M. SANTOS

    106 Phil 318

  • G.R. Nos. L-14059-62 September 30, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    106 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-11443 September 30, 1959 - MAXIMA GROSPE v. COURT OF APPEALS

    106 Phil 1144

  • G.R. No. L-14339 September 30, 1959 - MATIAS GAMBOL v. MANUEL P. BARCELONA

    106 Phil 328