Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 240 views

    People Vs Obsania

    Uploaded by

    Ricky Villaruz
    The Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, finding that the dismissal did not bar the prosecution from appealing or refiling the case against the accused.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People Vs Obsania

    Uploaded by

    Ricky Villaruz
    240 views2 pages
    The Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, finding that the dismissal did not bar the prosecution from appealing or refiling the case against the accused.

    Original Title

    People vs Obsania

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, finding that the dismissal did not bar the prosecution from appealing or refiling the case against the accused.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    240 views2 pages

    People Vs Obsania

    Uploaded by

    Ricky Villaruz
    The Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, finding that the dismissal did not bar the prosecution from appealing or refiling the case against the accused.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    People vs Obsania

    Facts: A criminal complaint of rape with robbery was filed against Obsania.

    After the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for further
    proceedings, the assistant provincial fiscal filed an information for rape against the
    accused, embodying the allegations of the above complaint, with an additional averment
    that the offense was committed "with lewd designs".

    The accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment, and forthwith his counsel moved for
    the dismissal of the case, contending that the complaint was fatally defective for failure
    to allege "lewd designs" and that the subsequent information filed by the fiscal which
    averred "lewd designs" did not cure the jurisdictional infirmity.

    The CFI granted the motion and ordered dismissal of the action, ruling that "the failure
    of the complaint filed by the offended party to allege that the acts committed by the
    accused were with 'lewd designs' does not give this Court jurisdiction to try the case."
    From this order, the fiscal brought the instant appeal.

    Issue: Does the present appeal place the accused in double jeopardy?

    Held: In order that the protection against double jeopardy may inure in favor of an
    accused, the following requisites must have obtained in the original prosecution: (a) a
    valid complaint or information; (b) a competent court; (c) the defendant had pleaded to
    the charge; and (d) the defendant was acquitted, or convicted, or the case against him
    was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

    The complaint filed with the municipal court in the case at bar was valid; the court a
    quo was a competent tribunal with jurisdiction to hear the case; the record shows that
    the accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. Hence, the only remaining and
    decisive question is whether the dismissal of the case was without the express consent
    of the accused.

    The accused admits that the controverted dismissal was ordered by the trial judge upon
    his motion to dismiss. However, he vehemently contends that under the prevailing
    jurisprudence, citing People vs. Bangalao, et al. (94 Phil. 354, February 17,
    1954), People vs. Labatete (L-12917, April 27, 1960), People vs. Villarin (L-19795, July
    31, 1964), and People vs. Cloribel (L-20314, August 31, 1964), an erroneous dismissal
    of a criminal action, even upon the instigation of the accused in a motion to quash or
    dismiss, does not bar him from pleading the defense of double jeopardy in a
    subsequent appeal by the Government or in a new prosecution for the same offense.
    The accused suggests that the above-enumerated cases have abandoned the previous
    ruling of this Court to the effect that when a case is dismissed, other than on the merits,
    upon motion of the accused personally or through counsel, such dismissal is to be
    regarded as with the express consent of the accused and consequently he is deemed to
    have waived his right to plead double jeopardy and/or he is estopped from claiming
    such defense on appeal by the Government or in another indictment for the same
    offense.

    This particular aspect of double jeopardy — dismissal or termination of the original case
    without the express consent of the defendant — has evoked varied and apparently
    conflicting rulings from this Court.

    The application of the sister doctrines of waiver and estoppel requires two sine qua non
    conditions: first, the dismissal must be sought or induced by the defendant personally or
    through his counsel; and second, such dismissal must not be on the merits and must
    not necessarily amount to an acquittal. Indubitably, the case at bar falls squarely within
    the periphery of the said doctrines which have been preserved unimpaired in the corpus
    of our jurisprudence.

    ACCORDINGLY, the order appealed from is set aside. This case is hereby remanded to
    the court of origin for further proceedings in accordance with law.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy