Title
People vs. Bao
Case
G.R. No. L-12102
Decision Date
Sep 29, 1959
Government appeals dismissal of serious oral defamation case against Benedicto Bao; Supreme Court rules dismissal as acquittal, barring retrial due to double jeopardy.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 211839)

Procedural History

The initial complaint was filed in the Justice of the Peace Court, which later amended the charges to serious oral defamation. After Bao waived his right to preliminary investigation, the case was deemed to exceed the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court and was forwarded to the Court of First Instance for a trial on the merits.

Charges and Allegations

In the information filed by the Provincial Fiscal, Benedicto Bao was accused of uttering defamatory statements against Maximina Banguis on or about April 22, 1955, claiming that she had lost her virginity to him. These statements were alleged to expose her to public contempt and ridicule, leading to material and moral damages.

Motion to Quash and Court Findings

After the prosecution presented its case, Benedicto Bao's counsel filed a motion to quash, arguing that the evidence did not support a conviction for serious oral defamation. The trial court granted this motion, citing evidence that instead suggested the crime of intriguing against honor, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court. Consequently, the court dismissed the case and directed the provincial fiscal to file the appropriate action in the proper court.

Appeal and Legal Principles

The prosecution appealed the dismissal, maintaining that the offense of intriguing against honor was necessarily included in the charge of serious oral defamation. However, the appellate court ruled that the dismissal constituted an acquittal, referencing the principle that such a dismissal after the prosecution rests its case prohibits further prosecution under the doctrine of double jeopardy.

Double Jeopardy Considerations

The ruling emphasized that the prosecution could not appeal without infringing upon the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, which bar

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.