Title
People vs. Archilla
Case
G.R. No. L-15632
Decision Date
Feb 28, 1961
Alfreda Roberts, accused of bigamy as an accomplice, successfully quashed charges but was estopped from claiming double jeopardy upon appeal; case remanded.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-15632)

Charges and Initial Proceedings

On March 6, 1959, Archilla and Roberts were charged with bigamy, with the specific allegations stating that on May 26, 1958, Archilla, who was already legally married to Luz Mat Castro de Archilla, contracted a second marriage with Roberts, who was aware that Archilla’s first marriage was still valid and subsisting. Following a plea of not guilty, Roberts filed a motion to quash the complaint against her, asserting that the facts did not constitute the crime charged.

Court Rulings and Appeal

The trial court granted Roberts’ motion to quash the complaint, citing a lack of specificity regarding her marriage to Archilla not being her second marriage. This decision led the prosecution to appeal, arguing that even without an explicit allegation that Roberts’ marriage was a second one, her knowledge of Archilla's existing marriage established her complicity in the crime of bigamy.

Arguments on Double Jeopardy

Roberts contended that the quashing of the information effectively amounted to her acquittal, thus invoking the defense of double jeopardy to prevent further prosecution. The prosecution countered that Roberts should not be allowed to claim double jeopardy as she had actively induced errors in the trial court’s proceedings.

Doctrine of Estoppel

The court addressed the issue of estoppel, stating that a party cannot adopt an inconsistent position on appeal compared to the stance taken in the lower court. Roberts’ claim of double jeopardy was deemed an inconsistency, as she had previously argued that the information was insufficient to constitute an offense, while now asserting that she could still be prosecuted.

Legal Precedents and Interpretation

The ruling referred to prior cases, including People vs. Acierto, highlighting the importance of consistency in legal arguments. It established that if an accused party initially disclaims one position, they cannot subsequently adopt a contradictory stance. The court asserted that

...continue reading

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