Title
People vs. Araquel
Case
G.R. No. L-12629
Decision Date
Dec 9, 1959
Araquel, convicted of "homicide under exceptional circumstances" by a justice of the peace court, claimed double jeopardy when charged with homicide in the Court of First Instance. The Supreme Court ruled no double jeopardy, as the justice of the peace court lacked jurisdiction.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 144050)

Facts:

  • Filing and pendency of original homicide complaint (Art. 249 RPC)
    • January 30, 1955 – Acting Chief of Police of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, files a complaint for homicide with the Justice of the Peace (JP) Court, accusing Alfredo Araquel of hacking and killing Alberto Pagadian with a bolo.
    • The case remains pending in the JP Court for over one and a half years without resolution.
  • Amendment to “homicide under exceptional circumstances” (Art. 247 RPC)
    • July 3, 1956 – Upon reinvestigation, the Chief of Police moves to amend the pending complaint, finding that Araquel killed Pagadian after discovering his spouse in the act of adultery, thus invoking Article 247 (homicide under exceptional circumstances).
    • July 16, 1956 – The JP Court allows the amendment; Araquel is arraigned, pleads guilty, and is sentenced the same day to one year of destierro (banishment) beyond a 25-km radius from Narvacan.
  • Information in the Court of First Instance (CI) and double jeopardy plea
    • February 16, 1957 – Acting Provincial Fiscal of Ilocos Sur files an information in the CI charging Araquel with ordinary homicide under Article 249 RPC.
    • July 9, 1957 – Araquel moves to quash the CI information on the ground of double jeopardy, citing his earlier JP Court conviction and sentence.
    • July 18, 1957 – The CI sustains the plea of double jeopardy and dismisses the information.
  • Government’s appeal
    • The People of the Philippines appeals to the Supreme Court, contending that the JP Court lacked jurisdiction over the amended complaint and that no prior valid jeopardy had attached.

Issues:

  • Does the plea of double jeopardy bar the prosecution in the Court of First Instance, given the prior JP Court conviction?
  • Did the JP Court have jurisdiction to try “homicide under exceptional circumstances” under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code?
  • Does Article 247 RPC define a separate crime, or does it merely grant an exempting or mitigating circumstance within the crime of homicide?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.