Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
*
No. L-39229. December 29, 1977.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
676
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a58a499cb9eb58f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 080
677
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a58a499cb9eb58f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 080
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a58a499cb9eb58f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 080
678
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a58a499cb9eb58f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 080
_______________
1 Art. II, Sec. 1 (20), 1935 Constitution; Art. IV, Sec. 22, 1973
Constitution
679
2
to one’s physical liberty.
There is legal jeopardy when for the same offense
presently charged in a criminal case the following
conditions are present: previous acquittal, conviction,
dismissal or termination without express consent of an
accused under a valid complaint or information, before a
court of competent jurisdiction,
3
and after arraignment and
entry of plea to the charge.
The parties now concede that the first conviction was
based on a valid complaint and rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction. Whatever ground there was for
challenging that first conviction was waived by the
accused-appellant when he withdrew his appeal thereby
rendering the decision of Judge Ramos final and executory.
What is in issue is whether or not the first conviction is
for an offense identical to that charged in the second case
filed with the Court of First Instance in Cabanatuan City
for which appellant has also been sentenced.
The Solicitor General representing the People submits
that the respective Informations in the two cases show that
they allege or charge different offenses. We hold, however,
that the two convictions cover one and the same offense.
If We will be guided solely by the wording in the
Information filed before the Guimba Court, it would indeed
appear that appellant was accused of theft of large cattle
belonging to Jacinto Sebastian, Simeon Makasiki and
Florentino Salcedo; however, the reality is that the
evidence adduced io that first proved that two carabaos,
“one male and one female”, were stolen by appellant on
April 18, 1971, from Donato Corpuz in Sto. Domingo,
Nueva Ecija. The accusation was therefore deemed
amended by the evidence adduced by the People for which
reason Judge Ramos convicted appellant herein of theft of
large cattle belonging to Donato Corpuz committed on April
18, 1971, in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, the Judge stating
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a58a499cb9eb58f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 080
_______________
680
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a58a499cb9eb58f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 080
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a58a499cb9eb58f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 080
——o0o——
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a58a499cb9eb58f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8