Scribd
Upload
947 views1 page

People Vs Buling

The accused pleaded guilty to less serious physical injury charges and served his sentence. After, another complaint was filed charging serious physical injury for the same wounds, which had not healed. The court ruled the initial prosecution barred subsequent prosecution for serious injuries, as there were no supervening facts allowing refiling - the injury was the same. The accused was acquitted.

Uploaded by

Antonio Leandro Carreon Dagdag
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
947 views1 page

People Vs Buling

The accused pleaded guilty to less serious physical injury charges and served his sentence. After, another complaint was filed charging serious physical injury for the same wounds, which had not healed. The court ruled the initial prosecution barred subsequent prosecution for serious injuries, as there were no supervening facts allowing refiling - the injury was the same. The accused was acquitted.

Uploaded by

Antonio Leandro Carreon Dagdag
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

People vs.

Buling 107 Phil 712 Section 21 FACTS: Accused was charged with less serious physical injury to another person in which the former pleaded guilty. After serving his sentence, the wounds inflicted by the accused allegedly did not heal. So, another complaint was filed against him, this time, he was charged with serious physical I injury. This is now the case at bar sought to be reversed and set aside by the accused. ISSUE: Whether the prosecution and conviction of Balaba for less serious physical injuries is a
bar to the second prosecution for serious physical injuries. RULING: YES. Unlike in the case of Melo v. People, there was no supervening facts in this case which would allow for the subsequent charge against the accused even after serving his sentence. The physical injury then committed was the same physical injury being brought up by the prosecution. Thus, there was no change in the nature of the injury suffered by the complainant. The decision appealed from is hereby reversed. The judgment of conviction is set aside and the defendant-appellant acquitted of the charge of serious physical injuries. Without costs.

Supervening facts

You might also like