Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2578)
Facts:
In The People of the Philippines vs. Ladislao Bacolod, G.R. No. L-2578, decided on July 31, 1951, the respondent, Ladislao Bacolod, a member of the PC patrol stationed in Santa Fe, Cebu, was first charged by Information dated September 10, 1948, with the crime of serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence for having fired a sub-machine gun on February 21, 1948, wounding one Consorcia Pasinio and incapacitating her for more than thirty days but less than ninety. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Cebu. On the same date of the incident, a second Information was filed alleging that Bacolod, with deliberate intent, wilfully and criminally fired a sub-machine gun at a town-fiesta dance in the municipal tennis court, thereby causing a serious disturbance, panic among the revelers, and panic-induced flight. His court-appointed counsel moved to quash the second Information, invoking the defense of double jeopardy grounded on the prior convicCase Digest (G.R. No. L-2578)
Facts:
- Proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Cebu
- On September 10, 1948, Ladislao Bacolod pleaded guilty to an information alleging serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence committed on February 21, 1948, in Santa Fe, Cebu.
- The first information charged that, by reckless imprudence, Bacolod fired a sub-machine gun and wounded Consorcia Pasinio, causing injuries requiring medical attendance and incapacitating her for over 30 days but less than 90 days.
- Subsequent information and motion to quash
- Bacolod was arraigned in a separate case, on the same date and place, for causing a public disturbance: wilfully firing a sub-machine gun at a town fiesta dance, wounding Pasinio and creating panic.
- Counsel de oficio moved to quash the second information on grounds of double jeopardy, asserting that prosecution was barred by the prior guilty plea to the first information.
- The trial court granted the motion to quash the second information, and the People appealed.
Issues:
- Whether the second information charging public disturbance is the same offense as the first information charging serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence, thus barred by double jeopardy.
- Whether Section 9, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court (prohibiting prosecution for an offense necessarily included in a former charge) requires dismissal of the second information.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)