THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. SIMACO BELLOSILLO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

This is an appeal, taken by the
prosecution, from an order of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo dismissing
the information in the above entitled case, with costs de oficio.

It is not disputed that, sometime
in 1959, an information was filed with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo
and docketed therein as criminal case No. 7689, charging defendants herein
Simaco Bellosillo, Fernando Diopido, Arturo Palacio, Crisostomo Gonzales and
Fedevioo Francisco with, the crime of theft of coconuts, valued P300.00 and
belonging to Pe Julian Lao, allegedly committed on December 23, 1958. Predicated on the ground that, upon a reinvestigation conducted at
the request of the accused, it turned out that the property from which the
coconuts were allegedly stolen was involved in a civil case between the
complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other, said criminal case
was, on motion of the prosecution, and “with the express conformity”
of the accused, dismissed on January 4, I960. However, soon thereafter, or on
March 23, 1960, the prosecution filed against the accused an identical
information which was docketed as criminal case No. 7997 of the same court, and
is the case at bar.

Before arraignment, the accused
moved to quash the last information upon the ground that the facts alleged
therein do not constitute an offense, and that the previous information
therefor had been dismissed. The lower court granted this motion, upon the
theory that, having failed to move for a reconsideration
of the order of dismissal of January 4, 1960, or to appeal therefrom, the
prosecution may no longer maintain the present action. Hence,
this appeal.

The order appealed from is
untenable. The order of January 4, 1960, dismissing case No. 7689, cannot be an
obstacle to the institution of the present case for, not being a decision on
the merits, said order cannot bar the present case upon the principles of res
adjudicate, and the provision of Rule 30, section 3, of the Rules of Court, to
the effect that a “dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon
the merits, unless otherwise provided by the Court,” does not apply to
criminal cases.

Neither does the present action
place the accused twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense, not
only because he had never been in jeopardy of punishment therefor in the
previous case, the same having been dismissed before arraignment and plea, but,
also, because its dismissal took place with the express consent of the accused
(Rule 113, section 9, Rules of Court; U.S. vs. Palisoc, 4 Phil., 207;
U.S. vs. Solis, 6 Phil., 676; U.S. vs. Sobrevinas, 35 Phil., 32; People
vs. Turla, 50 Phil., 676; People vs. Romero, 89 Phil. 672; July 31,
1951; Gaudicela vs. Lutero, 88 Phil, 299 Resolution of May 21, 1951;
People vs. Reyes, 98 Phil., 646 ).

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby
set aside and the case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings,
with costs de oficio. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, CJ., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.