G.R. No. 45739 - People vs. Bautista

The case involves the People of the Philippines vs. Sotero Peji Bautista and reached the appellate level through the Solicitor-General’s intervention.
On July 22, 1935, Bautista was charged in the justice of the peace court of Kawit, Cavite, by Ong Loo for allegedly violating Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code by subscribing, under oath, to a false affidavit.
The affidavit contained statements attesting that:

Ong Loo was well known to the complainant, having been acquainted for several months.
Specific transactions involving a manuscript and subsequent pledges were carried out, which allegedly resulted in Ong Loo wrongfully obtaining possession of said manuscript through deceitful means.
The manuscript was declared as the complainant’s source of income and was valued accordingly.

After the preliminary investigation conducted by the justice of the peace in Kawit, the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance because the matter did not fall within the limited jurisdiction of that court.
Instead of filing an information for the original offense (false affidavit under Article 183), the provincial fiscal charged Bautista with a different offense: false testimony in a criminal case under Article 180 of the Revised Penal Code.
The information filed additionally set forth separate allegations that on or about September 26, 1935, Bautista had given untruthful evidence regarding a transaction involving a manuscript, thereby shifting the focus from the original subject matter to a distinct crime.

During trial proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Cavite, Bautista objected on the grounds that:

He had not been given the required preliminary investigation before trial for the crime of false testimony.
The new charge differed substantially from the original allegations investigated by the justice of the peace.

The presiding judge, Hon. Emilio Pena, determined that the objection was well taken and transferred the case to the justice of the peace court of the provincial capital for the necessary preliminary investigation, as requested by Bautista.
Upon completion, the preliminary investigation revealed that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that Bautista committed the alleged crime of false testimony in the criminal case.

Bautista contended that he was subjected to double jeopardy by being placed in jeopardy through both the preliminary investigation and subsequent proceedings based on different charges.
The case record shows that a further preliminary investigation was conducted by Judge Pastor M. Endencia on May 20, 1936, who, in his order, confirmed the existence of reasonable grounds for the charge against Bautista, though this did not constitute a full trial.
The proceedings, therefore, invoked questions as to whether a preliminary investigation—being non-judicial in determining guilt—could amount to jeopardy, and whether subsequent changes in the charge could subject Bautista to the risk of a trial for essentially the same matter.

Whether Bautista was deprived of his right to a preliminary investigation before being charged with the crime of false testimony in a criminal case.
Whether the issuance of a new information charging him with a different offense (false testimony) after an initial prosecution for a different offense constitutes double jeopardy.
Whether the proper procedural requirements and jurisdictional boundaries were observed, given that the justice of the peace court is limited in imposing penalties lower than those prescribed for the more serious offense charged by the fiscal.
Whether the dismissal of the case due to the alleged irregularities in charging and preliminary investigation was legally sound.