People vs. Petilla, 92 Phil. 395

The real meaning of double jeopardy as intended by the Constitution and the Rules of Court and ’obnoxious to the administration of justice,’ and has 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’ (15 Am. Jur. 66), the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the new offense." That rule applies to the present case 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."

Where the charge contained in the original information was for slight physical injuries because at that time the fiscal believed that  the wound suffered by the offended party would require medical attendance for a period of only 8 days , but when the preliminary investigation was conducted, the justice of the peace found that the wound would heal after a period of 30 days , the act which converted the crime into a more serious one had supervened after the filing of the original information and this supervening event can still be the subject of amendment or of a new charge without necessarily placing the accused in double jeopardy. (People vs. Petilla, 92 Phil. 395)