THE PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, APPELLANT, VS. JUAN GIL, ET AL., APPELLEE.

Appeal
taken by the State from an order of the Court of First Instance of Agusan dismissing Criminal Case No. 2156 but leaving
Criminal Case No. 2153, of the same court, to proceed to trial and final
judgment.

It appears that Juan Gil, Angel Cabiugin
and Gerardo Limpiado
were charged separately by the offended parties, Jose Malingit and Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr., for
defamation under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code in the Justice of the
Peace Court of Nasipit, Agusan.  After they had waived their right to preliminary investigation, the cases were
elevated to the Court of First Instance, where separate informations
were filed against them.  Upon
arraignment they pleaded not guilty and the cases were subsequently set for
joint trial.  The record does not
disclose clearly whether or not the joint trial had actually began with the
presentation of the prosecution
witnesses, but it shows that the court, motu proprio,
raised this question:  That the acts
complained of as slanderous were
uttered on the same date, and at the same place, albeit against two different
persons; that such being the case there should have been only one information
against the parties charged.

After
hearing both parties upon this issue the court issued the order appealed from
dismissing one of the cases, – Criminal Case No. 2156 – but leaving the other –
Criminal Case No. 2153 – outstanding, to proceed to trial and final judgment.

We agree with the
prosecution that our decision in People vs. Del Rosario (G. R. No. L-2254, April 1950) for libel is controlling.  As in said case there are in the case before Us as many offenses as there were persons defamed.  However, as stated heretofore, the accused in
both cases had already pleaded not guilty when the court, motu proprio, raised the question of
multiplicity of prosecution for offenses arising from one and the same act, and
for this reason dismissed Criminal Case No. 2156.  As the dismissal – although erroneous – was
not at the instance of the defendants themselves, it must be deemed sufficient
to bar prosecution for the offense charged. 
To reverse the order of dismissal complained of and order the case to
proceed would therefore constitute double jeopardy (People vs. Borja 43 Phil 613; People vs. Vda.
de Golez G.R. L-14160, June 30, 1960; People vs.
Hernandez, 49 O.G. 5342).

WHEREFORE, judgment is
hereby rendered dismissing the appeal, without pronouncement as to costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., did not take part.