G.R. No. L-37837 August 24, 1984 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. LEODEGARIO L. MOGOL, s !u"g# o$ t%# &ou't o$ F('st I)st)*# o$ +u#o), '. I, )" EDGARDO &AALLAS, respondents. F*ts/ On December 21, 1971 at 7:00 in the evening at Magsaysay District, municipality o !ope", #rovince o $ue"on #hilippine, private respondent %dgardo &aballas 'ith deliberate intent 'ilully, unla'ully and eloniously attac( and stabbed %rnesto )andoval 'ith unidentiied (nie 'hich caused him to suer physical in*uries. + criminal complaint complaint 'as 'as iled against against &aballas &aballas or the crime o serious serious physical physical in*uries. pon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. -eore the presentation o evidence, the private prosecutor iled an urgent motion to amend the complaint rom serious physical in*uries to rustrated murder contending that rom the aidavits o the 'itnesses, it 'as sho'n that the accused had the maniest intention to (ill the victim. On the other hand, the deense iled a memorandum arguing that since the accused had been arraigned, the court can no longer entertain the motion or amendment o the complaint. he motion 'as denied. rial ensued. he court rendered a decision on /ovember 29, 1972 stating that the case can be amended to rustrated murder because o the evidence presented.. he case o serious physical in*uries 'as dismissed to give 'ay or the iling o rustrated murder. On une , 197, the #rovincial 3iscal o $ue"on iled an inormation o rustrated 'ith the &ourt o 3irst 4nstance o $ue"on. he accused moved to 5uash the inormation on the ground o double *eopardy. he court granted the motion. he )olicitor6eneral iled a petition or revie' contending that the granting o the motion to 5uash iled by the accused deprived the )tate his day in court and its duty to prosecute the accused. Issu#: Issu# : 0%#t%#' o' )ot t%# "(s(ss o$ t%# *o()t $o' s#'(ous %s(* ()5u'(#s g()st t%# **us#" 6's t%# $(()g o$ t%# ()$o't(o) $o' $'ust't#" u'"#' o) t%# g'ou)" o$ "ou6# 5#o'". 0%#t%#' o' )ot t%# "(s(ss o$ t%# *o()t $o' s#'(ous %s(* ()5u'(#s 6 t%# '#so)"#)t 5u"g#, (" )" #g Ru()g/
he )upreme &ourt held that that in this case,the Order o dismissal issued by the Municipal &ourt did not actually terminate or put an end to the prosecution against herein private respondent or the elonious act he 'as alleged to have committed. On the contrary, the dispositive portion o said Order e8pressly directed that the records o the case be or'arded to the &ourt o 3irst 4nstance so that the Oice o the #rovincial 3iscal could ile a complaint or rustrated murder. 4n the instant case, the right o private respondent as an accused to a speedy trial had never been invo(ed. /or did the Municipal &ourt ind that the prosecution ailed to prove the guilt o private respondent beyond reasonable doubt or in act said &ourt in eect stated that private respondent 'as guilty, not only o the crime charged o serious physical. in*uries, but o the graver oense o rustrated murder. here is, thereore, no reason 'hy the dismissal Order o the Municipal &ourt should be deemed as a *udgment o ac5uittal o the charge or serious physical in*uries. he )upreme &ourt ru(ed that respondent udge erred in dismissing the case or serious physical in*uries to give 'ay to the iling o a complaint or rustrated murder. 3or it is the duty o the respondent udge to render the decision as the evidence presented 'arrant under the inormation as iled or serious physical in*uries, and not dismiss the case on his idea or belie that there 'as evidence o intent to (ill the intended victim. he udge committed grave abuse o discretion amounting to e8cess o *urisdiction thereby rendering his Order o /ovember 29, 1972 null and void.
