BOR_Right against double jeopardy Flashcards
Provision
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. (Sec. 21, Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
What are the two kinds of double jeopardy
- Double jeopardy for the same offense; (1st sentence, Sec. 21, Art. III, 1987 Constitution); and
- Double jeopardy for the same act. (2nd sentence, Sec. 21, Art. III, 1987 Constitution);
When does legal jeopardy attach
Legal jeopardy attaches only upon: (Com-Fi-A-PA-W-E-C)
- Valid Complaint or information;
- Filed before a competent court;
- The Arraignment of the accused;
- To which he had Pleaded; and
- Defendant was previously Acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated Without his Express Consent.
(Saldariega v. Panganiban, G.R. Nos. 211933 & 211960, 15 April 2015)
To substantiate a claim of double jeopardy what must be proven
To substantiate a claim of double jeopardy, the following must be proven: (Fi-Va-Sa)
- A First jeopardy must have attached prior to the second;
- The first jeopardy must have been Validly terminated; and
- The second jeopardy must be for the Same offense, or the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information or is an attempt to commit the same or is a frustration thereof.
What are the related protections against DJ?
- Against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal;
- Against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and
- Against multiple punishments for the same offense.
Does the grant of a demurrer to evidence operate as an acquittal?
Such dismissal of a criminal case by the grant of demurrer to evidence may not be appealed, for to do so would be to place the accused in double jeopardy.
What are the exceptions to the right against DJ? (9)
- When the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;
- The accused was not acquitted nor was there a valid and legal dismissal or termination of the case;
- Dismissal of the case was during the preliminary investigation;
- It does not apply to administrative cases; and
- Dismissal or termination of the case was with the express consent of the accused
NOTE: When the dismissal is made at the instance of the accused, there is no double jeopardy. (People v. Quijada, G.R. Nos. 115008- 09, 24 July 1996)
GR: Double jeopardy is not available when the case is dismissed other than on the merits or other than by acquittal or conviction upon motion of the accused personally, or through counsel, since such dismissal is regarded as with express consent of the accused, who is therefore deemed to have waived the right to plea double jeopardy.
XPNs:
a. Dismissal based on insufficiency of evidence;
b. Dismissal because of denial of accused’s right to speedy trial;
c. Accused is discharged to be a State witness.
- When the case was provisionally dismissed;
- The graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission constituting the former charge;
NOTE: Doctrine of Supervening Event - The accused may still be prosecuted for another offense if a subsequent development changes the character of the first indictment under which he may have already been charged or convicted. (Sec. 7(2), Rule 117, ROC)
- The facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered only after a plea was entered in the former complaint or information;
- The plea of guilty to a lesser offense was made without the consent of the prosecutor and of the offended party except as otherwise provided in Sec. 1(f) of Rule 116.
The magazine also happened to have a website where the same article was published. Carlo then filed a libel case against Hans both under the Revised Penal Code and the Cybercrime Law. Is there a violation of the proscription against double jeopardy?
Summ: DJ na kapag libel RPC & Cybercrime Law
YES. There should be no question that if the published material on print, said to be libelous, is again posted online or vice versa, that identical material cannot be the subject of two separate libels.
The two offenses, one, a violation of Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code and the other a violation of Sec. 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 involve essentially the same elements and are in fact one and the same offense.
Online libel under Sec. 4(c)(4) is not a new crime but is one already punished under the Art. 353.
Sec. 4(c)(4) merely establishes the computer system as another means of publication. Charging the offender under both laws would be a blatant violation of the proscription against double jeopardy. (Disini v. Secretary of Justice)
Q: Jet was convicted for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries. Can he still be prosecuted for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property arising from the same incident?
A: NO. The doctrine that reckless imprudence under Art. 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not merely a means to commit other crimes such that conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of its various resulting acts.
Reason and precedent both coincide in that once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act. For the essence of the quasioffense of criminal negligence under Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof.
The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty, it does not qualify the substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should affect one person or several persons, the offense (criminal negligence) remains one and the same, and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions. (Ivler v. Hon. Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, 17 Nov. 2010)
Is a valid information required in order for the First Jeopardy to attach?
When accused policemen entered their pleas of not guilty, and later arraigned anew by reason of amendment of information, and consequently convicted, they were not placed in double jeopardy.
The first requirement for jeopardy to attach – that the information was valid – has not been complied with. (Herrera v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 119660- 61, 13 Feb. 2009)
NOTE: When the first case was dismissed due to insufficiency of evidence without giving the prosecution the opportunity to present its evidence, jeopardy has not yet attached. (People v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 168918, 02 Mar. 2009)
Q: After a long and protracted trial, the accused involved in the murder of then Senator Aquino were acquitted by the Sandiganbayan. After the EDSA People Power Revolution, a commission appointed by President Aquino recommended the re-opening of the Galman-Aquino murder case after finding out that the then authoritarian president Marcos ordered the Tanodbayan and Sandiganabyan to rig the trial. Marcos repudiated the findings of the very Fact Finding Board that he himself appointed to investigate the assassination of Ninoy Aquino;
he totally disregarded the Board’s majority and minority findings of fact and publicly insisted that the military’s “fall guy” Rolando Galman was the killer of Ninoy Aquino;
the Sandiganbayan’s decision in effect convicted Rolando Galman as Ninoy’s assassin notwithstanding that he was not on trial but the victim, and granted all 26 accused total absolution notwithstanding the Fact Finding Board declaring the soldiers’ version of Galman being Aquino’s killer a perjured story.
Will the rule on double jeopardy apply?
Summ: Here there’s denial of due process
A: NO. There was no double jeopardy. It is a settled doctrine that double jeopardy cannot be invoked against this Court’s setting aside of the trial courts’ judgment of dismissal or acquittal where the prosecution which represents the sovereign people in criminal cases is denied due process. The proceedings that took place before was a sham and a mock trial which resulted in the denial of the State’s right to due process. (Galman v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 72670, 12 Sept. 1986)
Whether the grant of dismissal of a
criminal case by the grant of demurrer to evidence may be appealed.
The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such as the one at bar, is ‘‘filed after the prosecution had rested its case,” and when the same is granted, it calls “for an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the case on the merits, tantamount to an acquittal of the accused.”
Such dismissal of a criminal case by the grant of demurrer to evidence may not be appealed, for to do so would be to place the accused in double jeopardy. The verdict being one of acquittal, the case ends there.
