People vs. Hon.

Mogol

FACTS: Sandoval was stabbed by Caballas resulting to a complaint of serious physical injury. Accused
pleaded not guilty, but later on, the prosecutor filed an Urgent Motion to Amend Information to charge
Frustrated Murder, stating therein that a close examination of the affidavits of the shows that the
accused intended to kill the offended party. Motion was denied as the amendment is substantial which
cannot be allowed after the accused entered his plea. The trial proceeded and was submitted for
decision. The MTC judge found the accused guilty of frustrated murder but did not render a judgment
of conviction averring lack of jurisdiction over the offense proved by the evidence presented. He
dismissed the case before him and ordered that a complaint for frustrated murder be filed in the CFI.
After the prosecution filed a complaint before the CFI, the defense filed a Motion to Quash on the
ground of double jeopardy.
DOCTRINE: The dismissal contemplated in Sec. 9, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court is a definite
or unconditional dismissal which terminates the case, and not a dismissal without prejudice as in the
present case. The case at bar was dismissed provisionally, i.e., without prejudice to filing of a new
information before the CFI, hence, the Order of dismissal did not actually terminate or put an end to the
prosecution of the felonious act. Thus, jeopardy does not attach.
It was, however, a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction when respondent
Judge dismissed the case for serious physical injuries "to give way to the filing of a complaint for
frustrated murder." For it is the duty of the respondent Judge to render the decision as the evidence
presented warrant, and not to dismiss the case on his Idea or belief that there was evidence of
intention to kill the victim which must result to frustrated murder rendering him without jurisdiction
thereof. (Jurisdiction on the subject matter is determined in the first instance based on the complaint
filed, not on the result of the case after trial, hence, in this case, the MTC validly acquired jurisdiction
and should have decided the case on the merits)
NOTE: Case was remanded back to MTC for proper decision.