Case Digest (G.R. No. 186571)
Facts:
On December 27, 1949, Conrado Melo was charged in the Court of First Instance of Rizal with frustrated homicide, accused of inflicting several serious wounds upon Benjamin Obillo with a kitchen knife, wounds which required medical attendance and incapacitated Obillo for more than thirty days. Two days later, having pleaded not guilty, Melo learned that Obillo died from those wounds on December 29, 1949 at 10:15 PM. The prosecution obtained evidence of death on January 3, 1950, and on January 4, 1950 filed an amended information charging Melo with consummated homicide. Melo moved to quash the amended information on the ground of double jeopardy, but the trial court denied his motion. Thereupon, Melo petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition to enjoin the respondent court from proceeding on the amended information.Issues:
Did the trial court’s allowance of an amended information charging Melo with consummated homici...Case Digest (G.R. No. 186571)
Facts:
- Charging and circumstances
- On December 27, 1949, Conrado Melo was charged in the Court of First Instance of Rizal with frustrated homicide for allegedly inflicting multiple serious wounds with a kitchen knife on Benjamin Obillo, requiring over 30 days of medical attendance and incapacitating him from his habitual labor.
- On December 29, 1949, at 8:00 a.m., Melo pleaded not guilty; at 10:15 p.m. the same day, Obillo died from his wounds.
- Post-death proceedings
- Evidence of Obillo’s death became available on January 3, 1950.
- On January 4, 1950, the prosecution filed an amended information charging consummated homicide.
- Melo moved to quash the amended information on double jeopardy grounds; the trial court denied the motion, prompting this petition for prohibition.
Issues:
- Whether the filing of an amended information charging consummated homicide after an initial frustrated homicide information constitutes double jeopardy.
- Whether the trial court correctly applied Rule 106, Section 13, second paragraph, in dismissing the original information and allowing a new one.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)