Facts:
On three separate occasions, complainant
Cipriana B. Tranquilan filed complaints with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of
Surigao del Sur, accusing
Maria L. Quizada of uttering statements referring to Tranquilan, including the allegation that she was a woman of ill repute, had an illicit love relationship with Tranquilan’s husband, and that Tranquilan would not get married because she was “a dirty woman,” as well as statements that her nipples were squeezed or touched by Tranquilan’s husband. On the basis of those complaints and after preliminary investigation, Assistant Provincial Fiscal filed, in the
Court of First Instance of Surigao del Sur, three separate informations for
grave oral defamation dated
September 14, 1981, substantially charging Quizada with having disparaged Tranquilan in language that, among other things, labeled her a “flirt,” “prostitute,” and “whore,” and in one information, specifically described her as a “paramour” of my husband, language treated as an imputation of
adultery. Upon arraignment on
February 18, 1982, Quizada pleaded not guilty to all three informations. She then moved to quash, arguing that the prosecutions should have been initiated not by the fiscal but upon complaint of the offended party, contending that the alleged remarks imputed to Tranquilan the private crime of adultery, a private offense. The trial judge agreed and granted the motion, dismissed the charges, and denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration. The prosecution elevated the dismissal to the Supreme Court, and Quizada invoked
double jeopardy, invoking
Article IV, Section 22 (now
Article III, Section 21) of the
1987 Constitution, as a bar to reinstatement.
Issues:
Whether the dismissal of the criminal informations for grave oral defamation on the ground of improper initiation of the actions, and the later reinstatement of the cases, violated
double jeopardy under the Constitution.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: