People v.

Manolong
GR No. L-2288 (30 March1950)
Reyes J. kmd
SUBJECT MATTER: Rights of the Accused; Double Jeopardy
CASE SUMMARY:
Manolong was charged with less serious physical injuries for inflicting injuries to Sanoy which, according to the complaint, would
take 20-30 days to heal. Manolong pleaded guilty and was convicted. He also started to serve his sentence. However, Sanoy’s
injuries actually took more than 90 days to heal, so the provincial fiscal filed a second information charging Manolong of serious
physical injuries. Manolong moved to quash the information on the ground of double jeopardy. The SC court ruled that the
second information does not constitute double jeopardy and reiterated the doctrine in Melo v. People.
DOCTRINES:
Where, after the first prosecution for a lesser crime, new facts have supervened which, together with those already in existence
at the time of the first prosecution, have made the offense graver and the penalty first imposed legally inadequate, the accused
cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the new offense. The doctrine laid down in the case of Melo vs. People et
al. is reiterated.
PARTIES:
Petitioner People of the Philippines
Respondent Maximo Manolong
FACTS:
February 4, 1948 Manolong was charged with LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES in the Justice of the Peace Tanjay, Negros
Oriental.
Allegedly, he inflicted injuries on the right arm of Fortunato Sanoy which, according to complainant,
would take 20 to 30 days to heal.
Manolong pleaded guilty to the complaint and on that same day, was convicted of the crime charged.
Two days later, he began to serve his sentence of 2 months and 1 day Arresto Mayor.
However, Sanoy's injuries did not heal within the period formerly estimated,
March. 12, 1948 so the provincial fiscal filed an information in the same court charging the accused with SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES.
Again the Manolong pleaded guilty. He was then bound over to the Court of First Instance.
May 5, 1948 The provincial fiscal then filed in the CFI the corresponding information for the said crime, alleging that the
wounds inflicted by the Manolong on Sanoy’s right arm required medical attendance and incapacitated
him for labor for a period of more than 90 days, causing deformity and the loss of the use of said member.
Manolong moved to have this last information quashed on the ground that it put him twice in jeopardy.
The motion was granted so the fiscal appealed to the SC.
ISSUE/S:
WON Manolong was put twice in jeopardy. (NO)
HOLDING/RATIO:
No, Manolong was not put twice in jeopardy when he was charged with Serious Physical Injuries.
The 1935 Constitution enjoins that no person shall be put twice in jeopardy.
Sec. 1 (20), Art. III, 1935 CONSTI
“No person shall be twice put in jeopardy or punished for the same offense."

To implement this constitutional mandate, the Rules of Court (Rule 113, Sec. 9) make conviction or acquittal of the
accused a bar to his subsequent prosecution, not only for the same offense, but also "for any offense which necessarily
includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information."
Furthermore, in Melo vs. People, the SC ruled that "where, after the first prosecution, a new fact supervenes for which
the defendant is responsible, which changes the character of the offense and, together with the facts existing at the
time, constitutes a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the
new offense."
 In this case, the offense of SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES charged in the last information necessarily includes the lesser
offense of LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES charged in the first complaint and of which the accused was convicted in
the Justice of Peace. After the first prosecution for LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES, new facts have supervened i.e.
Sanoy was actually incapacitated to work for more than 90 days. Together with those already in existence at the time
of the first prosecution, the new facts have made the offense graver (i.e SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES) and the penalty
first imposed legally inadequate. Applying Melo v. People, this does not constitute a double jeopardy.

WHEREFORE, following the ruling laid down in the case of Melo vs. People et al., the order appealed from is revoked and the
respondent court ordered to proceed with the trial of the case under the new information, but with the understanding that, in
case of conviction for the second offense, the accused be credited with the penalty already suffered by him under the first
conviction. Without costs.

NOTE:
The SC, in its decision in Melo vs. People et al. repealed the doctrine laid down in the case People v. Tarok.
Prior to Melo v. People, the Court follow the doctrines laid down in People vs. Tarok. The SC did not mention exactly
the Tarok doctrines but, it did say that if it were to follow People v. Tarok, the Court would dismiss the appeal because
a prosecution for “the offense of serious physical injuries charged in the last information necessarily includes the lesser
offense charged in the first complaint and of which the accused was convicted in the justice of the peace court” would
constitute double jeopardy.
SC believes that the doctrines in the Tarok case are contrary to the real meaning of double jeopardy as intended by the
Constitution and the Rules of Court and "obnoxious to the administration of justice."
Hence, it reverted to the rule that "where after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the defendant is
responsible, which changes the character of the offense and, together with the facts existing at the time, constitutes a new and
distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the new offense."