People v. City Court of Manila, Branch VI
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Agapito Gonzales was charged in two separate informations with violating Section 7, in relation to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 3060, and Article 201 (3) of the Revised Penal Code. The first charge pertained to the public exhibition of motion pictures not previously submitted to and passed by the Board of Censors for Motion Pictures. The second charge alleged the public exhibition of indecent and immoral motion picture scenes, depicting nudity and sexual acts, in a place open to public view. Gonzales pleaded not guilty to both charges. Procedural History: After his motion to quash the informations was denied, Gonzales moved to withdraw his plea in Criminal Case No. F-147348 (violation of the Revised Penal Code). Subsequently, he filed another motion to quash this information, this time on the grounds of double jeopardy, arguing that the allegations in both cases were identical. The respondent City Court dismissed Criminal Case No. F-147348, finding that the plea in one case could expose him to double jeopardy in the other due to identical allegations. Thereafter, Gonzales changed his plea in Criminal Case No. F-147347 (violation of R.A. 3060) to guilty and was sentenced. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of Criminal Case No. F-147348 was denied, leading to the present petition. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, as petitioner, seeks review on certiorari of the City Court's dismissal of Criminal Case No. F-147348. Petitioner contends that the respondent court erred in dismissing the case on the grounds of double jeopardy. They argue that the offenses charged under Republic Act No. 3060 and Article 201 (3) of the Revised Penal Code are distinct and do not constitute the same offense, as they have different elements and require different proofs. Furthermore, petitioner asserts that Gonzales waived his right to claim double jeopardy by failing to raise it at the appropriate time and by withdrawing his plea, thereby allowing the court to entertain the motion to quash only at its discretion. The petition argues that the dismissal was not based on the merits of the case and that the appeal by the prosecution does not constitute double jeopardy.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of Criminal Case No. F-147348 on the ground of double jeopardy was proper. Whether the offenses charged under Republic Act No. 3060 and Article 201(3) of the Revised Penal Code are the same offense for purposes of double jeopardy.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The orders of dismissal are reversed and set aside. Criminal Case No. F-147348 is ordered reinstated and remanded to the respondent Court for trial.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of dismissal on the ground of double jeopardy: The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of Criminal Case No. F-147348 on the ground of double jeopardy was improper. For double jeopardy to attach, three requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense. The Court found that these requisites were not met in this case because the offenses charged were distinct. On whether the offenses are the same for purposes of double jeopardy: The Court ruled that the offenses defined under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3060 and Article 201(3) of the Revised Penal Code are distinct and do not constitute double jeopardy for each other. The gravamen of the offense under RA 3060 is the public exhibition of any motion picture which has not been previously passed by the Board of Censors for Motion Pictures, regardless of its content. Conversely, the offense under Article 201(3) of the Revised Penal Code is the public showing of indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts, or shows. The elements of these two offenses are different; the evidence required to prove one is not the same as that required for the other. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offense under RA 3060 is a malum prohibitum, where criminal intent is presumed, while the offense under the Revised Penal Code is malum in se, requiring criminal intent as an indispensable ingredient. Therefore, a single act may offend against two distinct provisions of law, and prosecution under one does not bar prosecution under the other if each requires proof of an additional fact or element not present in the other.
Main Doctrine
The exhibition of motion pictures not duly passed by the Board of Censors for Motion Pictures under Republic Act No. 3060 and the public showing of indecent or immoral motion pictures under Article 201(3) of the Revised Penal Code are distinct offenses, and prosecution for one does not bar prosecution for the other, as they have different elements and nature.