Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Patangan,whose version of the crime was given full faith andcredence by the trial court
and sustained by thisCourt, was not present at the scene of the crime.
If this is true, then, the version of the prosecutionmight perforce fail and that of the
defense prevail.Consequently, the judgment of conviction could bereversed, or at the very
least, modified.
Disposition
Motion for new trial granted. Theevidence already taken shall st
a n d a n d t h e testimonies of Antonio Cachin Jr. and Manuel HenryAuza and such other
evidence of both prosecution and defense as the trial court may in the interest of justice
allow to be introduced, shall be taken andconsidered with the evidence already in the
record,and a new judgment thereafter rendered by thelower court
----------------------------------------------People v. City Court of Manila
Facts: On Oct. 17, 1972, Diolito dela Cruz figured in an accident. The next day an info for serious
physical injuries thru reckless imprudence (SPIRI) was filed against private respondent driver of the
truck. On Oct. 18, the victim died. On Oct. 20, private respondent was arraigned on the charge of
SPIRI; he pleaded guilty. On Oct. 24, an info for homicide thru reckless imprudence (HRI) was filed
against private respondent. On Nov. 17 city court of Mla dismissed above info on the ground of
double jeopardy.
Issue: WON there was double jeopardy.
Ruling: Where the victim of an accident died 2 days prior to the arraignment of the accused who
pleaded guilty to an info for SPIRI, he can no longer be charged with HRI as no new fact
supervened after the arraignment.
Molo v. People held that where the accused was charged with physical injuries and after
conviction the injured person dies, the charge for homicide against the same accused does not put
him twice in jeopardy. Above case not applicable in the instant case because there was no
supervening event.
------------------------