People v. Turla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant, Faustino Turla, was accused of damage to property and lesiones leves through negligence and imprudence. The information alleged that while driving an automobile, he recklessly operated it at an excessive speed, without necessary precautions, causing it to strike another automobile owned by Jose Reyes. This collision resulted in damage to Reyes's automobile amounting to P114.50 and inflicted physical injuries upon the passengers, Felicula Reyes and Ernesto Reyes, requiring medical attendance and preventing them from laboring for one to seven days. Procedural History: The defendant demurred to the information on the grounds that it charged more than one offense and that the alleged facts did not constitute a crime. The lower court sustained the demurrer on the first ground and ordered the fiscal to amend the information to charge only one offense. The fiscal failed to amend the information, leading the court to dismiss the case and absolve the defendant. The Petition: The fiscal appealed the dismissal order, assigning as error the lower court's sustaining of the demurrer and its subsequent dismissal and acquittal of the defendant.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the information. Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the case and acquitting the defendant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal without prejudice to the filing of amended informations, each charging only one offense, under paragraph 4 of Article 590 of the Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of sustaining the demurrer: The Court held that the lower court did not err in sustaining the demurrer. While the appellant conceded that the information charged two offenses, he argued that they resulted from the same act and thus, under Article 89 of the Penal Code, only one penalty could be imposed. The Court clarified that this contention would be sound if the offenses were felonies, but it cannot be sustained when the offenses are mere misdemeanors. An examination of Article 89 of the Penal Code reveals that it applies exclusively to allied felonies and has no bearing on misdemeanors. Therefore, charging two distinct misdemeanors in a single information is improper. On the issue of dismissing the case and acquitting the defendant: The Court found this assignment of error to be well-taken if the order was construed as a final acquittal. However, it noted that the dismissal was based on the fiscal's failure to comply with the court's order to amend the information. Crucially, no plea was entered by the defendant, and no witnesses were called. Consequently, the defendant was not placed in jeopardy. The Court reasoned that regardless of the language used in the dismissal order, it could only be regarded as a dismissal of the information without prejudice, and therefore, it did not bar the filing of amended informations. The Court cited United States vs. Claveria (29 Phil., 527) to support the principle that a dismissal under such circumstances does not constitute double jeopardy.
Main Doctrine
A single information may not charge both damage to property and lesiones leves through negligence and imprudence if these are considered misdemeanors, as Article 89 of the Penal Code applies only to allied felonies. A dismissal for failure to amend an information, without a plea or presentation of evidence, does not place the defendant in jeopardy and is without prejudice to refiling.