9/24/2019 G.R. No. L-44079 | Draculan v.
Donato
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-44079. December 19, 1985.]
JOSEFINO C. DRACULAN, Provincial Fiscal of
Isabela and PATRICIO T. DURIAN, Fourth
Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Isabela, petitioners,
vs. HON. PROCORO DONATO, Judge, Court of
First Instance of Isabela, Branch V, respondent.
DECISION
CUEVAS, J : p
Assailed and challenged in this petition for
CERTIORARI and MANDAMUS, for allegedly having
been issued without jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, are two
orders issued by the Honorable respondent Judge in
Criminal Case No. V-351 of the defunct Court of First
Instance of Isabela-Echague, Branch V. One dated April
13, 1976 1 denying petitioners' motion to dismiss; and
another one, issued on May 28, 1976 2 denying
petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid
order of dismissal.
The pertinent background facts are as follows:
On June 25, 1973, the Chief of Police of San Isidro,
Isabela filed with the Municipal Court of the said place, a
complaint for Less Serious Physical Injuries against
Florencio Miguel. The case was docketed in the said court
as Criminal Case No. 63.
https://0-cdasiaonline-com.lib1000.dlsu.edu.ph/jurisprudences/23477/print 1/7
9/24/2019 G.R. No. L-44079 | Draculan v. Donato
Tried after pleading not guilty upon arraignment,
accused Miguel was convicted as charged and thereafter
accordingly sentenced in a decision promulgated on
November 14, 1973.
From the aforesaid decision, Miguel appealed to the
then Court of First Instance of Isabela, where his appeal
was docketed as Criminal Case No. V-351 and assigned
to Branch V of the said court presided by the Honorable
respondent Judge. The record of the said case was then
transmitted and referred by the Clerk of Court to the Office
of the Provincial Fiscal of Isabela.
Upon a review of the evidence made by the
provincial fiscal's office, petitioners found that accused-
appellant Miguel should have been charged with "Direct
Assault Upon a Person in Authority" it appearing that
Benjamin Antonio, the offended party, is a person in
authority then engaged in the performance of his official
duties when assaulted. In view thereof, petitioners' office
then conducted a new preliminary investigation and upon
a prima facie showing that direct assault was actually the
crime committed by accused-appellant Miguel, petitioners
filed with the respondent court a Motion to Dismiss the
appealed Less Serious Physical Injury case.
Simultaneously, a new information for Direct Assault was
filed against Miguel which was docketed as Criminal Case
No. V-419. Upon receipt of the records of this assault
case, respondent Judge, in an order dated December 17,
1975, directed that it be returned to the Fiscal's Office on
the ground that it was prematurely filed considering that at
that time, the prosecution's motion to dismiss the appeal
was still pending resolution. cdrep
Undaunted by such a disposition, petitioners then
filed a new information which they caused to be docketed
also as Criminal Case No. V-351, similar to that of the
appealed less serious physical injury case, and thereafter
https://0-cdasiaonline-com.lib1000.dlsu.edu.ph/jurisprudences/23477/print 2/7
9/24/2019 G.R. No. L-44079 | Draculan v. Donato
again moved for the dismissal of the appealed case.
Petitioners' motion was denied and so with their motion for
reconsideration of the order of denial.
Hence, the instant petition wherein it is prayed that
the aforementioned orders of respondent Judge dated
April 13, 1976 and May 28, 1976 be declared null and
void; that respondent Judge be ordered to dismiss the
appealed less serious physical injury case; and that a writ
of preliminary injunction enjoining respondent from
proceeding with the trial of the appealed less serious
physical injury case be issued which should be made
permanent after hearing on the merits. LexLib
The petition is devoid of merit. Consequently, its
dismissal is in order.
Criminal Case No. V-351 is an appeal, not an
original case. It is before the Court of First Instance (now
Regional Trial Court) of Isabela pursuant to the appeal
interposed by accused Florencio Miguel from the decision
of the Municipal Court of San Isidro convicting him of Less
Serious Physical Injuries. The Court of First Instance then
took cognizance of such case in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction. And since the appeal was
subsequent to the passage of Republic Act No. 6031 3
which took effect on August 4, 1969, the appeal must now
be disposed of on the basis of the evidence presented
and admitted in the municipal court. No trial de novo is
necessary but the parties may merely submit and/or be
required to file their respective briefs or memoranda. 4
But since the proceeding before the San Isidro
Municipal Court was not duly recorded because of the
absence of a qualified stenographer, the court of First
Instance of Isabela must now conduct a trial de novo of
the case on appeal.
The question therefore posed before us is - may the
prosecution amend the information and/or file a new
information charging an offense different from that with
https://0-cdasiaonline-com.lib1000.dlsu.edu.ph/jurisprudences/23477/print 3/7
9/24/2019 G.R. No. L-44079 | Draculan v. Donato
which accused-appellant was tried and convicted in the
court below?.
Petitioners' answer to this query is in the affirmative,
relying on Section 13 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, 5
which provides:
"Section 13. Amendment. —The
information or complaint may be amended, in
substance or form, without leave of court, at any
time before the defendant pleads; and thereafter
and during the trial as to all matters of form, by
leave and at the discretion of the court, when the
same can be done without prejudice to the rights of
the defendant.
If it appears at any time before judgment
that a mistake has been made in charging the
proper offense, the court may dismiss the original
complaint or information and order the filing of a
new one charging the proper offense, provided the
defendant would not be placed thereby in double
jeopardy, and may also require the witnesses to
give bail for their appearance at the trial."
The above section contains two parts: one
authorizes the amendment of an information or complaint,
in substance or form, without leave of court, at any time
before the defendant pleads, and thereafter, only as to
matters of form. The other provides that, if it appears at
any time before judgment that a mistake has been made
in charging the proper offense, the court may dismiss the
original complaint or information and order the filing of a
new one charging the proper offense, provided the
defendant would not be placed in double jeopardy. LLjur
The amendment 6 or the filing of a new case where
there had been a mistake in charging the proper offense
after the dismissal of an existing one, 7 spoken of and
therein provided for apply, only to an original case where
https://0-cdasiaonline-com.lib1000.dlsu.edu.ph/jurisprudences/23477/print 4/7
9/24/2019 G.R. No. L-44079 | Draculan v. Donato
no judgment has as yet been rendered. Much less does
the said section apply to an appealed case such as the
instant proceeding. 8
The reason is obvious and that is because the right
to amend or to file a new complaint or information
charging the proper offense after the dismissal of the
original complaint or information, is subject to the rule on
double jeopardy, which petitioners in the instant case
miserably missed.
In the case at bar, the original charges was that of
less serious physical injuries. Whether the new charge for
direct assault with less serious physical injuries is by way
of amendment or through a new information is immaterial
since in both instances accused's former conviction would
be a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the second
offense. This was the dictum laid down in the case of
People vs. Bonotan 9 and which doctrine was reiterated in
the recent case of Tacas vs. Cariaso. 10 Thus: LLpr
"The charge of direct assault upon a person
in authority with physical injuries contained in the
fiscal's information is not included in the charge
contained in the complaint of the chief of police,
which is merely that of less serious physical
injuries unqualified by any allegation that those
injuries were inflicted upon the offended municipal
councilor, admittedly a person in authority, while he
was in the performance of his official duties or on
the occasion thereof, a qualification essential to the
offense charged in the information. The converse is
no less obvious, that is, that the charge, of direct
assault upon a person in authority with physical
injuries as set out in the information necessarily
includes the offense of less serious physical
injuries charged on the complaint, specially
because in both the information and the complaint,
the physical injuries inflicted are alleged to have
required medical assistance of a period of 14 days
https://0-cdasiaonline-com.lib1000.dlsu.edu.ph/jurisprudences/23477/print 5/7
9/24/2019 G.R. No. L-44079 | Draculan v. Donato
and incapacitated the offended party from labor for
the same period of time. As proof that the offense
charged in the information includes the offense
charged in the complaint, conviction of the
defendants of this latter offense may, without
question, be had under the information if the other
ingredients of the crime charged in said information
are not proved. Hence, the defense of double
jeopardy was well taken. The order of dismissal
was thus affirmed precisely on the very same
constitutional ground relied upon in this petition." 11
We find the said pronouncement "on all fours" to the
instant case. Petitioners' submittal not being in accord
therewith may not be sustained.
But the more serious repercussion of which the
petitioners appeared unmindful of, is the fact that with the
withdrawal of the appeal, the old judgment of conviction is
revived and the accused loses his right to a review of the
evidence on appeal by way of questioning the validity of
his conviction. What is sought to be dismissed is not the
main case, 12 but merely the appeal which was docketed
as Criminal Case No. V-351.
WHEREFORE, finding the instant petition to be
without merit, the same is DISMISSED. The appropriate
Regional Trial Court of Isabela to which Criminal Case No.
V-351 was reassigned is, therefore, hereby directed to
proceed immediately with the trial of the said case until its
final termination.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, Escolin and
Alampay, JJ., concur.
https://0-cdasiaonline-com.lib1000.dlsu.edu.ph/jurisprudences/23477/print 6/7
9/24/2019 G.R. No. L-44079 | Draculan v. Donato
Footnotes
1. Annex "A" of the Petition.
2. Annex "B" of the petition.
3. An Act converting the Municipal and City Courts into
Courts of Record.
4. Luzano vs. Romero, 41 SCRA 247.
5. 1964 Rules of Court.
6. Under the first paragraph.
7. Under the second paragraph.
8. People vs. Villasis, et al., 46 O.G., Supplement No. 1,
p. 868; L-1218, Sept. 15, 1948.
9. 105 Phil. 1349.
10. L-37406, August 31, 1976, 72 SCRA 527. .
11. Ibid, pages 531-532.
12. Criminal Case No. 63.
https://0-cdasiaonline-com.lib1000.dlsu.edu.ph/jurisprudences/23477/print 7/7
