G.R. No. 179702 - Ancheta vs. Destiny Ficial Plans, Inc.

On May 13, 1955, Benedicto Bao was charged in the Justice of the Peace Court of Aloran, Misamis Occidental for oral defamation based on a complaint filed by Maximina Banguis.
The original complaint was later amended to charge Bao with the crime of serious oral defamation.
The defendant waived his right to a preliminary investigation.

The case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental because the justice of the peace court held that the case did not fall within its jurisdiction.
The provincial fiscal subsequently filed an information accusing Bao of having committed serious oral defamation on or about April 22, 1955, in the barrio of Casusan, municipality of Aloran.
The information alleged that Bao, with the deliberate intent to bring Maximina Banguis into discredit, recklessly uttered insulting and defamatory words implying that she was no longer a virgin despite being single, thereby causing moral and material damage.

Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not guilty.
After the prosecution rested its case, Bao, through his counsel, filed a motion to quash the information on two primary grounds:

That the facts alleged in the information did not constitute the crime of serious oral defamation as defined under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code.
That the evidence presented was insufficient to convict him of any criminal offense.

The trial court, however, determined that the evidence adduced by the prosecution actually established the crime of intriguing against honor, which is penalized by Article 364 of the Revised Penal Code and falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court.

On November 3, 1956, the trial court granted the motion to quash and dismissed the case with costs de oficio, directing the provincial fiscal to file the corresponding action before the proper justice of the peace court.
The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal, which was denied.
The Government (People of the Philippines) subsequently appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court.

Whether the dismissal of the case, on the basis that the facts charged in the information did not constitute the crime alleged, effectively amounts to an acquittal.
Whether the doctrine of double jeopardy bars the prosecution from re-filing or re-prosecuting the defendant for the same offense since the dismissal has the effect of an acquittal.
Whether the fact that the dismissal was secured upon the motion of the accused, rather than being a judicial determination ex officio, affects the application of the double jeopardy principle.