People v. Bautista [40 O.G. 2491]



FACTS: This case is by virtue of an appeal interposed by the Solicitor-General to the resolution of the Court of First Instance of Cavite dismissing said case for the following reasons: first, that the accused Sotero Peji Bautista was not given a preliminary investigation before trial; and second, that said accused had been twice put in jeopardy.
The accused Bautista was charged by one Ong Loo in the justice of the peace court of Kawit, Cavite, with having violated the provisions of article 183 of the Revised Penal Code on May 30, 1935 by knowingly subscribing under oath a false affidavit. After the preliminary investigation required by law, the justice of the peace remanded the case to the Court of First Instance because it did not fall under his jurisdiction and he reached the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the crime was committed by the accused. However, the provincial fiscal, filed another charging him with false testimony in a criminal case under article 180 of the said Code, which is a felony entirely different from that which had been the subject of the preliminary investigation by the justice of the peace.
After trial has commenced with the fiscal presenting his first witness, the accused objected that he had not been given a preliminary investigation and that the crime with which he was then charged was entirely different from that which had been imputed to him in the justice of the peace court. The judge then presiding ordered the transfer of the case to the justice of the peace court of the capital of the province to the end that the necessary preliminary investigation be there made. This done, the justice of the peace returned the case to the Court of First Instance.

ISSUE: WON the accused had been twice put in jeopardy.

HOLDING: The Court ruled that it is not true that said accused had been twice put in jeopardy or in danger of being tried for the same crime of false testimony in a criminal case. All that took place was a preliminary investigation in the first case, namely, that endorsed to the justice of the peace of the capital of the province so that said investigation might be conducted. And this proceeding had to be taken because the accused asked for it, invoking his right to a preliminary investigation before the submission of the charge against him. He had then undoubtedly a right to said investigation because when the fiscal first charged him with false testimony in a criminal case, case No. 6999, said fiscal disregarded the aforementioned procedure and formality, it not being possible to declare that the same were observed just because he had them in case No. 1047 of the justice of the peace court of Kawit for the reason that in the latter case a crime distinct from that imputed to him afterwards was involved. The Revised Penal Code divides false testimony into three forms: first, false testimony in a criminal case (arts. 180 and 181) ; second, false testimony in a civil case (art. 182); and third, false testimony in other cases. The requisites for each of these three forms are different, and the penalties for each one of them and for each of their variations are also different. From the foregoing it is obvious that it is not the same thing to charge one with false testimony in a criminal case and to charge him with false testimony in a civil case, and with the same crime in other cases.
Therefore, if there had been nothing more than a preliminary investigation, clearly it could not be said that the accused had ever been in jeopardy. This is because a preliminary investigation is not a trial or any part thereof and does not have for its object that of determining definitely the guilt of the accused by proofs, counterproofs, and the other formalities prescribed by law.

Comments

  1. Toby18 February 2021 at 19:39

    Hello. I was looking for the fulltext but am unable to get it from E-SCRA. I cannot find it at all. Thank you for this but if you can help me have teh full text, it will help chewing the law than merely swallowing it. GOD bless

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous30 November 2024 at 06:43

    i found it! https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1939/apr1939/gr_l-45739_1939.html

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50 o.g. 5880]

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.Several voters were omitted in the list.Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita? HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se . The omission or failure to include a voter’s...
Read more

US v. Serapio [23 P 584]

FACTS: Defendant was charged with the crime of libel. Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arraigned. Upon arraignment the defendant, by his attorneys, presented the following demurrer:I. The facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a crime. II. It appears from the allegation in the complaint that if there were a crime it has prescribed. With reference to the second ground, counsel for the defense maintains that the crime has prescribed under the provisions of the laws in force in the Islands and supports such conclusion by asserting that in the absence of a definite provision in Act No. 277 of the Philippine Commission, which fixes the time during which the penal action arising from the crime of libel may be exercised, the time which article 131 of the Penal Code fixes for the prescription of the crimes of calumny and insults is strictly applicable. Against this contention of the defense, the Attorney-General and the private prosecutor maint...
Read more

People v Macatanda [109 S 35]

FACTS: Charged with and convicted on a plea of guilty, in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch IV in Iligan City, for the crime of cattle rustling, Saglala Macatanda. From the judgment of conviction, Saglala Macatanda (hereinafter referred to as appellant) appealed direct to this Court. The Solicitor General comes up with a reply that Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to penalties prescribed by special laws. He considers P.D. 533, otherwise known as "Anti- Cattle Rustling Law of 1974" as a special law, and in accordance with existing rulings, 8 the penalty should not be governed by the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: Whether the contention of the Solicitor-General is valid. RULING: The court do not agree with the Solicitor General that P.D. 533 is a special law, entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribe...
Read more