PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

PABLO MOLERO,
defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. L-67842, September 24, 1986
FACTS: Appeal from the decision of the CFI. Molero was charged with rape by
daughter in complaint filed in CFI Negros Oriental. Molero denied the charge, saying
he couldnt have done it because he was already committed in the provincial jail
that time. He also denied the sworn statement he made, saying hes illiterate. He
said he was not informed of his rights to remain silent and to counsel; that he was
not assisted by counsel during investigation. The trial court found Molero guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of rape.
Two complaints were filed in this case:
Date of filing: March 22, 1977 - rape was committed Feb 13, 1976
Date of filing: March 30, 1978 - rape was committed Feb 5, 1976
Molero was arraigned under the first complaint, he pleaded not guilty. During trial,
the provincial fiscal filed motion for leave to amend the complaint due to the
discrepancy in the date of the commission of the offense. This was granted. Molero
flied an MR. This was granted thus the trial court set aside the admission of the
amended complaint and ordered the dismissal of the case. The Order also states
that the accused shall not be discharged as there appears a good cause to detain
him in custody to answer for the proper offense pursuant to Sec. 12, Rule 119 of the
Rules of Court. A new information was filed by the prosecutor. Molero filed motion
to quash 2nd criminal complaint on ground of double jeopardy. This was denied. He
was convicted.
Petitioners contention: he was placed in double jeopardy when the instant case was
filed and he was brought to trial to answer for the crime of rape allegedly
committed on February 5, 1976. He argues that the dismissal of the first complaint
on ground of variance between allegation and proof amounted to his acquittal,
citing People v. Opemia (98 Phil. 698). He points to the fact that the criminal
complaint alleged that he committed the crime of rape on February 13, 1976 and
yet the prosecutions evidence shows that the alleged crime was committed on
February 5, 1976.
ISSUE: Whether Molero was under double jeopardy.
RULING: NO. the order of dismissal does not constitute a proper basis for a claim of
double jeopardy.
It is quite clear that the order of the trial court dismissing the Criminal Case No.
2148 was without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint and/or information
charging the appellant with the proper offense. The case was not terminated
because the dispositive portion of the order expressly directed the Provincial Fiscal
and/or the prosecuting fiscal to file a new complaint and/or information charging the
accused with the proper offense of rape committed on or before February 5, 1976.
The case was dismissed for no other reason except to correct the date of the crime
from on or about the 13th day of February to on or about the 5th day of
February. Hence, the provisional dismissal of Criminal Case No. 2148 could not

have barred the prosecution of the case against the appellant.

It is quite clear that the order of the trial court dismissing the Criminal Case No.
2148 was without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint and/or information
charging the appellant with the proper offense. The case was not terminated
because the dispositive portion of the order expressly directed the Provincial Fiscal
and/or the prosecuting fiscal to file a new complaint and/or information charging the
accused with the proper offense of rape committed on or before February 5, 1976.
The case was dismissed for no other reason except to correct the date of the crime
from on or about the 13th day of February to on or about the 5th day of
February. Hence, the provisional dismissal of Criminal Case No. 2148 could not
have barred the prosecution of the case against the appellant.
Petition AFFIRMED with modification; amount of indemnity increased.