Double Jeopardy

   EMBED

Share

Preview only show first 6 pages with water mark for full document please download

Transcript

Consti 2

Double Jeopardy engaged in his duties, petitioners allegedly pointed their guns at him. Thus, he immediately
ordered his subordinate to call the police and block road to prevent the petitioners’ escape.
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an Upon the arrival of the police, petitioners put their guns down and were immediately
act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute apprehended.
a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
A complaint “grave threats” was filed against the petitioners (Criminal Case No. 5204). It was
PEOPLE VS. OBSANIA [23 SCRA 1249; G.R. L-24447; 29 JUN 1968] dismissed by the court acting on the motion of the petitioners. Mabuyo filed a MOR thus the
dismissal was reversed. Thereafter, petitioners filed for “certiorari, prohibition, damages, with
Facts: The accused was charged with Robbery with Rape before the Municipal Court of
relief of preliminary injunction and the issuance of a TRO” (CEB-9207). Petition is dismissed for
Balungao, Pangasinan. He pleaded not guilty. His counsel moved for the dismissal of the charge
lack of merit and for being a prohibited pleading and ordered to proceed with the trial of the
for failure to allege vivid designs in the info. Said motion was granted. From this order of
case. Hence, this instant petition.
dismissal the prosecution appealed.

Issues: (1) Whether or Not the dismissal of 5204 was a judgment of acquittal.
Issue: Whether or Not the present appeal places the accused in Double Jeopardy.

(2) Whether or Not the judge ignored petitioner’s right against double jeopardy by dismissing
Held: In order that the accused may invoke double jeopardy, the following requisites must
CEB-9207.
have obtained in the original prosecution, a) valid complaint, b) competent court, c) the
defendant had pleaded to the charge, d) defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case
Held: For double jeopardy to attach, the dismissal of the case must be without the express
against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
consent of the accused. Where the dismissal was ordered upon motion or with the express
assent of the accused, he has deemed to have waived his protection against double jeopardy.
In the case at bar, the converted dismissal was ordered by the Trial Judge upon the defendant's
In the case at bar, the dismissal was granted upon motion of the petitioners. Double jeopardy
motion to dismiss. The “doctrine of double jeopardy” as enunciated in P.vs. Salico applies to
thus did not attach.
wit when the case is dismissed with the express consent of the defendant, the dismissal will
not be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense because his action in having the case
Furthermore, such dismissal is not considered as an acquittal. The latter is always based on
is dismissed constitutes a waiver of his constitutional right/privilege for the reason that he
merit that shows that the defendant is beyond reasonable doubt not guilty. While the former,
thereby prevents the Court from proceeding to the trial on the merits and rendering a
in the case at bar, terminated the proceedings because no finding was made as to the guilt or
judgment of conviction against him.
innocence of the petitioners.

In essence, where a criminal case is dismissed provisionally not only with the express consent
The lower court did not violate the rule when it set aside the order of dismissal for the
of the accused but even upon the urging of his counsel there can be no double jeopardy under
reception of further evidence by the prosecution because it merely corrected its error when it
Sect. 9 Rule 113, if the indictment against him is revived by the fiscal.
prematurely terminated and dismissed the case without giving the prosecution the right to
complete the presentation of its evidence. The rule on summary procedure was correctly
PAULIN VS. GIMENEZ [217 SCRA 386; G.R. NO. 103323; 21 JAN 1993]
applied.
Facts: Respondent and Brgy Capt. Mabuyo, while in a jeep, were smothered with dust when
G.R. No. 95642 May 28, 1992 Lopez, AMC
they were overtaken by the vehicle owned by Petitioner Spouses. Irked by such, Mabuyo
followed the vehicle until the latter entered the gate of an establishment. He inquired the
AURELIO G. ICASIANO, JR., petitioner vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE
nearby security guard for the identity of the owner of the vehicle. Later that day, while
PHILIPPINES, respondents

1

Hence. manifest partiality and incompetence. these 1. docketed as Crim. prosecutor to look into administrative matter b. 8. although may involve same acts as in the administrative case. Double jeopardy because he was already exonerated in MTJ-87-81 Facts: b. Special Prosecutor Querubin responded that there were no records of such administrative matter. No jurisdiction abuse of authority. To avail of the double jeopardy. because seeing that the special prosecutor had no record. Sandiganbayan denied motion for reinvestigation c. Petitioner moved to quash the information on the following grounds: a. a competent court. Consti 2 Topic: Double Jeopardy 9. Matter No. Meanwhile. the defendant had pleaded to the charge. violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (docketed as TBP 924) 3. 3. MTJ-87-81. Icasiano filed a motion for reinvestigation on the ground that he has already been exonerated in Admin. The date of filing is not shown but the case was among those transmitted to the newly created Sandiganbayan. A Criminal Case in the Sandiganbayan. a valid complaint or information. However. a bar to the other. Special Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the case for lack of merit. Hence. 14563. 5. b. Office of Tanodbayan received another complaint from Magbago which no Held: Yes. Supreme Court dismissed this administrative case. The case arose from two orders of detention issued by the Judge against Magbago for her refusal to comply with fifth writ of execution a. Magabago also filed in the Ombudsman against Judge Icasiano for Practices Act. requires proof beyond 6. Hence. petitioner failed to present documents regarding the administrative matter. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction for violations of Anti Graft and Corrupts 2. Special Prosecution Officer adopted recommendation substantial evidence is sufficient. a valid arraignment. MTJ-87-81 cannot serve as defense for double jeopardy as it is an admin case and the instant case is criminal b. Prosecutor Cruz was assigned to investigate TBP 546 and he recommended filing of 2. Distinction between an administrative and criminal case should be upheld. An Administrative procedure need not strictly adhere to technical rules and information in January 1990. and 2 . Case reasonable doubt. an information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. The resolution was released on Issue: W/N double jeopardy applies in this case April 1988. Romana Magbago filed an administrative complaint against Judge Icasiano for grave c. One is not records didn’t contain the records of the dismissal of TBP 924. Sandiganbayan denied motion to quash: a. d. 4. Such recommendation was approved by the Tanodbayan. No cause of action 1. the court ordered the a. Sandiganbayan should continue proceedings. was docketed as TBP 546. 10. the following requisites must concur: 7. and unfortunately. However.

WHEREFORE. he was acquitted. In the 2 requisites given. he was assisted y counsel. reiterated the fact that the dismissal was due to lack of merits of the prosecution which would the Sandiganbayan is ordered to proceed with Criminal Case No. he was allowed to present evidence and consequently testified that he stabbed the Millan and Jochico in double jeopardy deceased in self-defense. The temporary restraining order issued earlier is LIFTED. Held: Yes the revival of the case will put the accused in double jeopardy for the very reason that the case has been dismissed earlier due to lack of merits. On the basis of the testimony of the accused. Thus. It is true that the criminal case of Issue: Whether or Not the appeal placed the accused in double jeopardy. the prosecution appealed.R. or the case against him was committed by the accused do not constituted the crime of falsification as strictly enumerated dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent in the revised penal code defining the crime of falsification which was charged earlier and that their case be dismissed. legitimate complaint and concern against the accused Sensio. The accused on the other hand. Millan and Jochico which was filed at a competent court with jurisdiction on the said case. it was the first on that is very much applicable to our case at bar individuals and use of falsified document”. convicted or dismissed or otherwise terminated without been no standing of plea during the judgment of acquittal. At his counsel Issue: Whether or Not the grant of petition by the court would place the accused Sensio. NO. L-43790. de officio. 31 AUG 1966] thus the appeal of the plaintiff. L-26376. Said testimony had the effect of vacating his double jeopardy it says: That there should be a valid complaint. The accused had first entered a plea of guilty but however bar the prosecution of another case. This was not done. NO.1686 and 1022 loaded with sugar canes which were placed in tarjetas (weight report two instances when we can conclude that there is jeopardy when first is that the ground for cards). it was done with the consent of the accused therefore waiving there defense of double jeopardy.R. so there can be no double jeopardy express consent of the accused in which were all present in the case at bar. he stated that he surrendered himself voluntarily to the police authorities.1743. the petition is DENIED. Facts: Aurelio Balisacan was charged with homicide in the CFI of Ilocos Norte. calling for the evidence beyond reasonable ground which Held: The Supreme Court held that it is settled that the existence of plea is an essential the prosecution had not been able to do which would be tantamount to acquittal therefore will requisite to double jeopardy. respondent court issued its order dismissing the case on the ground that the acts 3 . G. Romeo Millan and Wilfredo against the accused were not sufficient to prove them guilty beyond reasonable doubt Jochico who were then scalers at the Hawaiian-Philippine Company. Upon being arraigned. have the same effect as an acquittal which will bar the prosecution from prosecuting the accused for it will be unjust and unconstitutional for the accused due to double jeopardy rule PEOPLE VS. BALISACAN [17 SCRA 1119. it was proven and shown that there was padding of the weight of the sugar the dismissal of the case was due to insufficiency of evidence and second. the where there was dismissal of the case due to insufficiency of evidence which will bar the respondent moved to dismiss the charge against them on the ground that the evidences approval of the petition in the case at bar for it will constitute double jeopardy on the part of presented were not sufficient to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. valid. There was indeed a with respect to the appeal herein. Apparently. falsification was dismissed on a motion of the accused however this was a motion filed after the prosecution had rested its case. Acting on the the accused which the law despises. there has defendant was previously acquitted. After the prosecution had presented. 14563. accused Pacifico Sensio. G. The three accused then were charged with “Falsification by private trial. It explained further that there are No. People asserts that the plea of double jeopardy is not tenable even if the case at bar was dismissed because according to them. Therefore. weighed cane cars therefore dismissing the case which translates to acquittal. As it was stated on the requirements of a valid defense of testified that he acted in complete self-defense. second would be that such plea of guilty and the court a quo should have required him to plead a new charge. COURT OF SILAY [74 SCRA 248. It was also mentioned that PEOPLE VS. In doing so. the defendant was acquitted. he entered into a plea of guilty. motion. or convicted. it was proven that the case used Facts: That sometime on January 4. or at least complaint be filed before a competent court and to which the accused has pleaded and that direct that a new plea of not guilty be entered for him. 9 DEC 1976] the accused pleaded not guilty and during the time of trial. when the canes and that the information on the tarjetas were to be false making it appear to be heavier proceedings have been reasonably prolonged as to violate the right of the accused to a speedy than its actual weight. Consti 2 e.1974. In addition.

Rizal with Psu-248206 and that she "does not know of any Issue: Whether or Not the revival of grave coercion case. committed as follows: the said accused on August 17. as the case filed was grave coercion. legal or equitable. The dismissal was due to complainant’s incapability to from a document entitled "Kasulatan Ng Bilihan Ng Lupa Na May Pasubali O Condicion" dated present its evidence due to non appearance of the witnesses and complainant himself which August 12. revival of the case will put the accused in double jeopardy for the very reason that encumbrances of any nature. as a result of which the Court in its Decision of March 22. GREGORIO G. that one.1979. and the dismissal or termination of the case without his express consent constitutes res judicata and is a bar to another ISSUE: prosecution for the offense charged. The following day. Consti 2 ESMENA VS. L-44205. In the case. the above-named accused. Thomas Tibudan to withdraw a sum of money worth P5000 from the [ G. Rizal. Ilano said parcel of land referred to above as can be gleaned effect of an acquittal on the case filed. accused Esmeña in a narration of facts. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL. on the apprehension that she is in danger of at bar. premised.00 to would bar further prosecution of the defendant for the same offense. which was dismissed earlier due to mortgage or encumbrance of any kind whatsoever affecting said land or that any person has complainant’s failure to appear at the trial. all three conditions were present. FEBRUARY 16. 1993 ]PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. being then private individual did then and there the fiscal filed a motion to revive the case and attached the medical certificate of the priest willfully. No trial came in after the arraignment due to the priest’s CONSOLACION NAVAL. bank to be given to them because the priest lost in a game of chance. the court a quo denied arraigned and has pleaded to the complaint or the information. complainant’s reason to be valid in order to reschedule again another hearing. For double jeopardy to the herein accused. G. AND petitioners pleaded “Not Guilty”. In the case for falsification. PETITIONER. Taytay.24. After 27 days Philippines. NO. HON. among other things. that On October 28. The accused invoked their right to speedy trial. RESPONDENTS. 20 FEB 1981] in order to protect the respondents as well for their right to speedy trial which will be equivalent to acquittal of the respondents which would be a bar to further prosecution. that it is done before a court of competent jurisdiction and third. document entitled "Application For Registration" for parcels of land located at Taytay. which would make the case filed res judicata and has been dismissed by the competent court 4 . to the effect that She is the exclusive owner in fee simple of a parcel of land situated in Malaking Bundok. Barrio Dolores. there is a valid complaint or information filed second. unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public document by making untruthful statements proving the fact that the priest was indeed sick of influenza. Respondent judge dismissed the case because the trial was already dragging the accused and that the priest’s FACTS: telegram did not have a medical certificate attached to it in order for the court to recognize the That on or about the 17th day of August. 1975. filed in a court of being condemned for an identical offense. 1972 declared the herein accused the true and absolute owner of said parcel of land free from all liens and Held: Yes. Facts: Petitioners Esmeña and Alba were charged with grave coercion in the Court of Cebu City for allegedly forcing Fr. request to move it on another date. reversion or expectancy". it was evidently shown that the accused invoked their right to a speedy trial and asked for the trial of the case and not its termination Whether or not the court may in its discretion entertain at any time before judgment a motion which would mean that respondents had no expressed consent to the dismissal of the case to quash on the ground of jeopardy. Sometime later Judge Pogoy issued an order setting the trial Aug. would place the accused in double jeopardy estate or interest therein. 1971. are present then the acquittal.R. in the municipality of Pasig. when in truth and in fact the herein accused has already sold and the case has been dismissed already without the consent of the accused which would have an encumbered to one Edilberto V. 1971. Ilano has already paid partial amount of P130. executed a and Alba filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of double jeopardy. NO. private respondent Consolacion Naval moved to quash the information the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded to the complaint or information. Naval pleaded not guilty to the competent jurisdiction as to where the coercion took place and last the accused were charge levelled against her for falsification and on December 22. in possession remainder. conviction of the accused. BRANCH XXI. During arraignment.1979 but the fiscal informed the court that it received a telegram stating that the complainant was sick. POGOY [102 SCRA 861. L-54110. exist these three requisites should be present. province of Rizal. On Oct. PINEDA. 1969 and said Edilberto V.R.850. VS. 1975.16. When these three conditions her motion to quash.

claiming that his absence was because such date was a Muslim holiday and the office of the Provincial prosecutor was closed on that day. (d) a valid plea having been entered. as long as the accused had entered his plea therein is no longer required in order that the accused may move to The private respondents cannot invoke their right against double jeopardy. 1991 but the prosecutor was not present. In several cases it quash a second prosecution for the same offense on the ground of double jeopardy. The prosecution filed a motion for reconsidereation. Dario Suco and Galvino Cadling were charged of robbery with homicide and multiple serious physical injuries in the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga with Hon. In the facts above. Arsenio Padumon. this does not apply. Held: In determining the right of an accused to speedy disposition of their case. Samuel Padumon. 1991. (2) Whether or Not the dismissal serves as a bar to reinstatement of the case. G. Luis Tampal. The motion was denied by respondent judge." was held that dismissal on the grounds of failure to prosecute is equivalent to an acquittal that would bar another prosecution for the same offense. there was no showing that there was an unjust delay caused by the prosecution. and Samuel Padumon were arrested. The case was reset without any objection from the defense counsel. TAMPAL [244 SCRA 202. while the others remained at large. NO. It would now appear that prior conviction or acquittal in the first case. HELD: the respondent judge should have given the prosecution a fair opportunity to prosecute its case. but in this case. What are violative of the right of the accused to speedy trial are 5 . Wilfredo Ochotorena as presiding judge.R. but Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Wilfredo Guantero moved for postponement due to his failure to contact the material witnesses. 22 MAY 1995] Facts: Luis Tampal. arraignment. Pablito Suco. courts should do more than a mathematical computation of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case. Domingo Padumon. The respondent judge considered the absence of the prosecutor as unjustified. 102485. Consti 2 unjustified postponements which prolong trial for an unreasonable length of time." further proceedings. Domingo Padumon. the order of dismissal is annulled and the case is remanded to the court of origin for terminated without the express consent of the accused. and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise Therefore. (c) after considering that the rights of the accused to a speedy trial was not violated by the State. PEOPLE VS. Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment. The case was called on September 20. and dismissed the criminal case for failure to prosecute. (b) before a competent court. The case was set for hearing on July 26. However. Arsenio Padumon. hence. only private respondents. Issues: (1) Whether or Not the postponement is a violation of the right of the accused to a speedy disposition of their cases.