Double Jeopardy

People v Salico | 84 phil 722 | October 13, 1949 |

Facts:

This is an appeal by the provincial fiscal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Occidental
Negros which, upon the petition of the defendant before the latter has presented his evidence,
dismissed the criminal action against the defendant charged with homicide on the ground that the
fiscal was not able to prove that the offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the
court, or that the town or municipality of Victorias in which it was committed is within the Province of
Negros Occidental.

Issue:

Whether or not the appeal by the prosecution from the order of the Court of First Instance in the
present case would place the defendant in double jeopardy.

Ruling:

No. The appeal by the prosecution from the order of dismissal of the Court of First Instance would not
place the defendant in double jeopardy: First, because by the dismissal of the case by the court below
upon motion of the defendant, the latter has not been in jeopardy; second, because the appeal by the
prosecution in such case would not place the defendant in double jeopardy; and third, because
assuming arguendo that the defendant had been already in jeopardy in the court below and would be
placed in double jeopardy by the appeal, the defendant has waived his constitutional right not to be
put in danger of being convicted twice for the same offense.

When the case is dismissed with the express consent of the defendant, the dismissal will not be a bar
to another prosecution for the same offense; because, his action in having the case dismissed
constitutes a waiver of his constitutional right or privilege, for the reason that he thereby prevents
the court from proceeding to the trial on the merits and rendering a judgment of conviction against
him.

Under section 2, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court the prosecution may appeal because the defendant
would not be placed thereby in double jeopardy, not only when the defendant has not yet been
placed in jeopardy in the court below, but also when, although a defendant had already been in
former jeopardy, the appeal by the prosecution would not place him in danger again of being
convicted by the appellate court for the same offense, because the question for the appellate court to
decide is not the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
Under section 9, Rule 113, of the Rules of Court such dismissal will not be a bar to another
prosecution for the same offense and, therefore, to an appeal by the prosecution from the order of
dismissal.

Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the defendant is acquitted because the evidence does
not show that defendant's guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt; but dismissal does not decide the case
on the merits or that the defendant is not guilty. Dismissal terminates the proceeding, either because
the court is not a court of competent jurisdiction, or the evidence does not show that the offense was
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the complaint or information is not valid
or sufficient in form and substance, etc.