People v. Hernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Serafin Hernandez, was charged with the crime of physical injuries. The information alleged that on or about September 23, 1949, in Pasig, Rizal, the accused willfully and feloniously attacked Amador Palor, causing physical injuries that required 25 days of medical attendance and incapacitated him from labor for the same period. As a consequence, the offended party lost the power to hear of his right ear. Procedural History: Hernandez pleaded not guilty. He was tried jointly with Apolonio Velasco, who was accused in a separate case for serious physical injuries committed on the same occasion. The trial court convicted Apolonio Velasco but dismissed the information against Serafin Hernandez, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the crime charged was triable before the justice of the peace court. The court reasoned that while the prosecution intended to prove serious physical injuries, the information only charged less serious physical injuries, and conviction for a higher offense not charged is not permissible. Furthermore, the court stated that the crime charged was within the original jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court. The Petition: The prosecution appealed the dismissal of the information against Serafin Hernandez, contending that the crime described was serious physical injuries under Article 263, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, due to the loss of the power to hear of the offended party's right ear.
Issue(s)
Whether the loss of hearing in a single ear constitutes 'serious physical injuries' under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Whether the prosecution can appeal the dismissal of a criminal case ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction on the erroneous ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed, with costs de officio.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court clarifies that the loss of hearing in one ear constitutes 'serious physical injuries' under Article 263, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). While Article 263, paragraph 2 refers to the total 'loss of the power to hear,' the loss of hearing in only the right ear falls under the classification of losing 'the use of any other part of his body' (paragraph 3). Because the injury is classified under paragraph 3, the penalty involved is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. Consequently, the offense was indeed cognizable by the Court of First Instance (CFI) rather than the Justice of the Peace Court. The lower court therefore erred in its initial determination that it lacked jurisdiction over the case based on the nature of the injury proved. On Issue 2: Despite the lower court's error in declaring a lack of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court rules that the appeal is barred by the principle of double jeopardy. The Court emphasizes that once a defendant has been arraigned, entered a plea, and the trial has proceeded to a conclusion, a dismissal by a court that actually has jurisdiction terminates the proceedings. An appeal from such a dismissal would necessarily place the accused in jeopardy for a second time for the same offense. The Court distinguishes this from cases where dismissal is obtained with the express consent or at the request of the accused. Since Hernandez had already faced trial, the finality of the dismissal—even if legally flawed—must be upheld to protect the constitutional right against double jeopardy.
Main Doctrine
An appeal by the prosecution from a dismissal of a criminal case for lack of jurisdiction, where the dismissal was based on the court's finding that the offense proved was not the one charged, places the accused in double jeopardy if the dismissal was not with the consent of the accused, rendering the appeal unappealable.