PEREZ vs CA

FACTS: Yolanda Mendoza filed a criminal complaint against petitioner Eleuterio Perez for Consented
Abduction with the CFI. Accused pleaded not guilty and a judgment of conviction was rendered against
Perez. On appeal, it reversed and acquitted Perez of the crime ruling that he seduced the complainant to
accomplish his lewd designs, which was seduction and not abduction. Mendoza then filed another
criminal complaint against Perez, this time for Qualified Seduction with the MTC. Petitioner Perez filed a
motion to quash invoking double jeopardy and waiver and/or estoppel on the part of the complainant.
However, it was denied as well as his MR. Petitioner Perez filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
with the SC questioning the denial of his motion to quash and for reconsideration filed with the MTC.
The Court referred the case to the Intermediate Appellate Court. IAC then dismissed the petition
without prejudice to its refiling in the proper RTC. Complying with this, Perez filed a petition for
certiorari and prohibition with the RTC which was again dismissed ans well as his MR. Thereafter, Perez
filed a petition for review with the CA, again the petition was denied, being inappropriate, and that the
decision sought to be reviewed had become final and executory.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was double jeopardy.

RULING: No. Petitioner argues that the filing of the subsequent information for Qualified Seduction is
barred by his acquittal in the case for Consented Abduction. He maintains that since the same evidence
would support charges for both offenses, a trial and conviction for one, after he was acquitted for the
other, would constitute double jeopardy. While it is true that the two offenses for which petitioner was
charged arose from the same facts. This, however, does not preclude the filing of another information
against him if from those facts, two distinct offenses, each requiring different elements, arose.