Bill of Rights - Article 21: Rule against Double Jeopardy Flashcards
2018 Political Law
XIV
Amoroso was charged with treason before a military court martial. He was acquitted.
He was later charged with the same offense before a Regional Trial Court. He asks that the information be quashed on the ground of double jeopardy.
The prosecution objects, contending that for purposes of double jeopardy, the military court martial cannot be considered as a “competent court.”
Should the Regional Trial Court grant Amoroso’s motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy?
Yes, the Motion to Dismiss should be granted.
A defendant, having been acquitted of a crime by a court martial of competent jurisdiction proceeding under lawful authority, cannot be subsequently tried for the same offense in a civil court.
It appears that the offense charged in the Court Martial and in the Regional Trial Court is the same, that the military court had jurisdiction to try the case, and that both courts derive their powers from one sovereignty. So, the acquittal by the military court should be a bar to Amoroso’s further prosecution for the same offense in the Regional Trial Court.
(Crisologo v. People, G.R. No. L-6277, February 26, 1954; Marcos v. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. L-4663, May 30, 1951; Garcia v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 198554, July 30, 2012)
