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 &A-ALLAS, 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 'il ully, unla' ully and eloniously attac( and stabbed %rnesto )andoval 'ith unidenti ied (ni e 'hich caused him to su er physical in*uries. + criminal complaint 'as iled against &aballas or the crime o serious physical in*uries. ,pon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. -e ore 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 a idavits o the 'itnesses, it 'as sho'n that the accused had the mani est intention to (ill the victim. On the other hand, the de ense 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 0une 1, 1972, the #rovincial 3iscal o $ue"on iled an in ormation o rustrated 'ith the &ourt o 3irst 4nstance o $ue"on. .he accused moved to 5uash the in ormation on the ground o double *eopardy. .he court granted the motion. .he )olicitor67eneral iled a petition or revie' contending that the granting o the motion to 5uash iled by the accused deprived the )tate his day in court and its duty to prosecute the accused. Issu#: 0%#t%#' o' )ot t%# "(s1(ss 2 o$ t%# *o132 ()t $o' s#'(ous 3%4s(* 2 ()5u'(#s g ()st t%# **us#" 6 's t%# $(2()g o$ t%# ()$o'1 t(o) $o' $'ust' t#" 1u'"#' o) t%# g'ou)" o$ "ou62# 5#o3 '"4. 0%#t%#' o' )ot t%# "(s1(ss 2 o$ t%# *o132 ()t $o' s#'(ous 3%4s(* 2 ()5u'(#s 64 t%# '#s3o)"#)t 5u"g#, 7 2(" )" 2#g 2 Ru2()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 O ice 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 e ect stated that private respondent 'as guilty, not only o the crime charged o serious physical. in*uries, but o the graver o ense o rustrated murder. .here is, there ore, 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 0udge erred in dismissing the case or serious physical in*uries 9to give 'ay to the iling o a complaint or rustrated murder.9 3or it is the duty o the respondent 0udge to render the decision as the evidence presented 'arrant under the in ormation 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 0udge committed grave abuse o discretion amounting to e8cess o *urisdiction thereby rendering his Order o /ovember 29, 1972 null and void.