3. BOGO-MEDELLIN MILLING vs.

SON

Facts: Petitioner Robert Hermosa and Private Respondent were charged with the crime of qualified
theft of a large rubber tire. After their arraignment but before the presecution could commence, the
original judge discharged petitioner Hermosa from the information on the instance of petitioner that he
be utilized as a state witness against his co-accused.Before the hearing, original judge was replaced by
respondent judge who ordered the reinstatement of petitioner Hermosa as co-accused in the case for
qualified theft.

Issue: Whether or not the reinstatement of petitioner as co-accused would place him in double jeopardy
considering that his discharge from the information amounted to his acquittal.

Ruling: YES. The discharge from the information of a co-accused who is to be utilized as government
witness must be considered, for purposes of determining whether a second prohibited jeopardy would
attach upon reinstatement as a co-accused. Petitioner Having been acquitted of the charge of qualified
theft, could not be subsequently reinstated as a co-accused in the same information without a
prohibited second jeopardy arising under the reinstatement, absent satisfactory proof that he had
refused or failed to testify against his co-accused.