Title
People vs. Adil
Case
G.R. No. L-41863
Decision Date
Apr 22, 1977
Margarito Fama, Jr. faced two charges for assaulting Miguel Viajar. The first case (slight injuries) was dismissed for delay; the second (serious injuries) was dismissed on double jeopardy grounds. The Supreme Court ruled the second case valid due to a supervening fact (permanent scar), allowing prosecution.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 209741)

Applicable Law

The case was decided in 1977 under the 1935 Philippine Constitution, since it predates the 1987 Constitution. The issue revolves around the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, which prohibits a person from being tried twice for the same offense after acquittal or conviction.

Case Background and Charges

Margarito Fama, Jr. was initially charged with slight physical injuries in Criminal Case No. 3335 before the Municipal Court of Janiuay, based on an incident involving the use of a stone as a weapon against Miguel Viajar. The information stated the injuries required medical treatment lasting five to nine days, "barring complications." Fama pleaded not guilty on July 7, 1975.

Subsequently, the Provincial Fiscal filed a separate information (Case No. 5241) before the Court of First Instance, charging Fama with serious physical injuries from the same incident. The second charge specified that the injuries not only required medical attendance but also resulted in a permanent scar and facial deformity on Viajar.

Procedural History and Motion on Double Jeopardy

Fama filed a motion to defer proceedings in Criminal Case No. 5241, asserting that prosecuting this case amounted to double jeopardy since he was already charged and arraigned in Case No. 3335. The prosecution opposed this motion, and both parties filed memoranda concerning the double jeopardy issue.

Concurrently, after filing Case No. 5241, the Provincial Fiscal moved to dismiss Case No. 3335, but the Municipal Court did not act on the motion. The Municipal Court instead set the case for hearing, but due to repeated prosecution postponements, the court eventually dismissed Case No. 3335, citing violations of the accused's right to a speedy trial under Section 16, Article IV of the 1935 Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Following this dismissal, the lower court ruled in favor of double jeopardy and dismissed Case No. 5241, a decision upheld even after the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration. The ruling was based on precedent set in People v. Silva, which deals with the identity of offenses in relation to double jeopardy.

Legal Issue

Whether the second charge of serious physical injuries, especially the element of a permanent scar and deformity, constitutes a new and distinct offense separate from slight physical injuries such that the prosecution of Case No. 5241 would not violate the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy.

Analysis on Double Jeopardy and Supervening Facts

The Court emphasized that at the time Criminal Case No. 3335 was filed, the nature of the injuries (slight physical injuries requiring medical attendance for 5-9 days) was accurately described based on existing evidence. The alleged permanent scar and deformity only became apparent later, after the wound had healed, making the element of deformity a supervening fact that was not and could not have been known when the first case was filed.

Citing authorities, the Court distinguished this case from People v. Silva, noting that in Silva, the injuries and damages were known and existing at the time of initial prosecution, thereby constituting the same offense. The Court applied the rule from Melo v. People, which allows for subsequent prosecution if a new offense arises after the initial prosecution, and People v

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.