Case Digest (G.R. No. L-30250)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Pablo Pilpa, G.R. No. L-30250. September 22, 1977. Supreme Court Second Division. Aquino, J., writing for the Court.
The prosecution (plaintiff-appellant) charged Pablo Pilpa (defendant-appellee) in the City Fiscal’s Office of Tacloban City with frustrated murder by an information filed on April 19, 1967 (Criminal Case No. 11935). The information alleged that on October 29, 1966 Pilpa stabbed Rex Magsambol, inflicting wounds that ordinarily would have caused death but which did not result in death because of timely medical assistance. Pilpa was arraigned on June 15, 1967 and, with counsel, pleaded not guilty.
On November 20, 1967 the public prosecutor moved in open court to dismiss the information for supposed lack of jurisdiction, arguing that intent to kill had not been specifically alleged. Counsel for Pilpa orally manifested “We have no objection.” Judge Elias B. Asuncion thereupon dictated an order granting dismissal “upon petition of the private and public prosecution for the dismissal of this case, without objection on the part of the accused, expressed through counsel,” and dismissed the case with costs de oficio.
Later the same afternoon Pilpa and his counsel filed a written manifestation of opposition to the dismissal; the clerk-judge noted it “Noted.” On November 21 counsel filed a motion for reconsideration contending the court had jurisdiction; the motion was denied on November 25, 1967. Meanwhile, on November 22, 1967 the city fiscal filed a second information for frustrated murder against Pilpa (Criminal Case No. 12183) repeating the earlier allegations and adding the words “intent to kill” and “vital portion.”
On February 15, 1968 Pilpa moved to quash the second information on the ground of double jeopardy. The fiscal opposed. In an order dated April 5, 1968, Judge Lope C. Quimbo of the Court of First Instance of Leyte granted the motion to...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did counsel’s oral statement “We have no objection” at the dismissal hearing constitute the accused’s express consent so as to defeat a claim of former jeopardy under Rule 117, Sec. 9?
- Would the filing of the second information subject Pablo Pilpa to double jeopardy for the same offens...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)