Facts:

On November 9, 1913, an information was filed by the provincial fiscal of Occidental Negros in the Court of First Instance against Felix Rubin, charging him with the crime of lesiones (assault and battery) under Article 418 of the Penal Code. The charge arose from an incident involving the Chinaman Yap Sayco, also known as Sinqui, whom Rubin allegedly assaulted, resulting in wounds that hindered Sayco from performing his usual occupational activities and necessitated medical attention for a duration of eight days. Upon his arraignment, Rubin filed a demurrer arguing that a previous complaint had been lodged against him in the justice of the peace court of Kabankalan for the same offense, where he had already been tried and sentenced. Rubin contended that since no appeal had been filed either by Sayco or the Government against the judgment, the matter had become final, thus preventing retrial due to the principle of double jeopardy, as stated in Section 26 of General Orders No. 5

...

Facts:

Filing and Charges

• On November 9, 1913, the provincial fiscal of Occidental Negros filed an information in the Court of First Instance charging Felix Rubin with the crime of lesiones, in violation of Article 418 of the Penal Code.
• The charge arose from Rubin’s alleged assault and battery against the Chinaman Yap Sayco, alias Sinqui, wherein Rubin inflicted wounds that prevented Sayco from engaging in his habitual occupation and necessitated eight days of medical attention.

Prior Proceedings and Demurrer

• Prior to the November 1913 information, a complaint had been filed against Rubin in the justice of the peace court of Kabankalan on September 23, 1912.
• The said complaint, initiated by Yap Sayco, charged Rubin with lesiones menos graves under Article 418 of the Penal Code, detailing similar facts of assault which prevented the complainant from engaging in his labor for a specified period.
• On September 30, 1912, the justice of the peace court sentenced Rubin to pay a fine of 15 pesetas for a misdemeanor against the person under Article 589 of the Penal Code.

Demurrer Raised by the Defendant

• At arraignment before the Court of First Instance, Rubin demurred on the basis that he had already been tried and judged by the justice of the peace court, and that judgment had become final due to the absence of an appeal by either the injured party or the Government.
• Rubin contended that, pursuant to section 26 of General Orders No. 58, the earlier judgment rendered him already in jeopardy, thereby precluding the Court of First Instance from trying him again for the same offense.

Proceedings in the Court of First Instance and Subsequent Appeal

• The Court of First Instance overruled the provincial fiscal’s contention that the alleged facts might serve as a defense but insisted they did not constitute valid grounds for a demurrer with respect to jeopardy.
• By order dated December 10, 1912, the trial court sustained the demurrer, dismissed the case with costs de officio, and ordered the cancellation of the bail bond given by Rubin.
• The provincial fiscal appealed this order, prompting mandamus proceedings by the Attorney-General against the trial judge, thereby elevating the matter for review.

Issue:

Whether the defendant’s plea of jeopardy, raised in the guise of a demurrer to the complaint, is a valid ground for dismissal.

• Does the fact that Rubin had been tried in the justice of the peace court constitute a proper demurrer under section 21 of General Orders No. 58?
• Can being “in jeopardy” be sufficiently established by the mere occurrence of a previous trial, even if that trial was rendered by a court lacking proper jurisdiction?

Whether the justice of the peace court of Kabankalan possessed the requisite jurisdiction to try Rubin for the offense alleged under Article 418 of the Penal Code.

• Did the penalties provided for by Article 418 (which include arresto mayor or destierro and a fine possibly exceeding prescribed limits) exceed the jurisdictional bounds of a justice of the peace court?
• In view of the limitations imposed by relevant statutory provisions (such as section 4 of Act No. 2041 and section 2 of Act No. 2131), was the trial in the lower court legally valid?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)