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 i mmediately
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] Facts: The accused was charged with Robbery with Rape before t he Municipal Court of
Balungao, Pangasinan. Pangasinan. He pleaded not guilty. His counsel moved for the dismissal of the charge for failure to allege vivid designs in the info. Said motion was granted. From this order of dismissal the prosecution appealed. Issue: Whether or Not the present appeal places the accused in Double Jeopardy. Held: In order that the accused may invoke double jeopardy, the following requisites must
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 against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. In the case at bar, the converted dismissal was ordered by the Trial Judge upon the defendant's motion to dismiss. The “doctrine of double jeopardy” as enunciated in P.vs. Salico applies to
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 is dismissed constitutes a waiver of his constitutional right/privilege for the reason that he thereby prevents the Court from proceeding to the trial on the merits and rendering a judgment of conviction conviction against against him. In essence, where a criminal case is dismissed provisionally not only with the express consent of the accused but even upon the urging of his counsel there can be no double jeopardy under Sect. 9 Rule 113, if the indictment against him is r evived by the fiscal. PAULIN VS. GIMENEZ [217 SCRA 386; G.R. NO. 103323; 21 JAN 1993] Facts: Respondent and Brgy Capt. Mabuyo, while in a jeep, were smothered with dust when
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
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 relief of preliminary injunction and the issuance of a TRO” (CEB -9207). Petition is dismissed for
lack of merit and for being a prohibited pleading and ordered to proceed with the trial of the case. Hence, this instant petition. Issues: (1) Whether or Not the dismissal of 5204 was a judgment of acquittal. (2) Whether or Not the judge ignored petitioner’s right against double jeopardy by dismissing
CEB-9207. Held: For double jeopardy to attach, the dismissal of the case must be without the express
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 dismissal was granted upon motion of the petitioners. Double jeopardy thus did not attach. Furthermore, such dismissal is not considered as an acquittal. The latter is always based on merit that shows that the defendant is beyond reasonable doubt not guilty. While the former, in the case at bar, terminated the proceedings because no finding was made as to the guilt or innocence of the petitioners. The lower court did not violate the rule when it set aside the order of dismissal for the reception of further evidence by the prosecution because it merely corrected its error when it 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 applied. G.R. No. 95642
May 28, 1992
Lopez, AMC
AURELIO G. ICASIANO, ICASIANO, JR., petitioner JR., petitioner vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE
Consti 2
Topic: Double Jeopardy
9.
Facts:
1.
Romana Magbago filed an administrative complaint against Judge Icasiano for grave
Petitioner moved to quash the information on the following grounds: a.
Double jeopardy because he was already exonerated in MTJ-87-81
b.
No cause of action
c.
No jurisdiction
abuse of authority, manifest partiality and incompetence. 10. Sandiganbayan denied motion to quash: a.
The case arose from two orders of detention issued by the Judge against a.
Magbago for her refusal to comply with fifth writ of execution
MTJ-87-81 cannot serve as defense for double jeopardy as i t is an admin case and the instant case is criminal
b.
However, Supreme Court dismissed this administrative case. b.
2.
Meanwhile, Magabago also filed i n the Ombudsman against Judge Icasiano for
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction for violations of Anti Graft and Corrupts Practices Act.
violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (docketed as TBP 924) 3.
Special Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the case for lack of merit. Such recommendation was approved by the Tanodbayan. The resolution was released on
Issue: W/N double jeopardy applies in this case
April 1988. 4.
However, Office of Tanodbayan received another complaint from Magbago which no was docketed as TBP 546. The date of filing is not shown but the case was among those transmitted to the newly created Sandiganbayan; and unfortunately, these records didn’t contain the records of the dismissal of TBP 924.
5.
Prosecutor Cruz was assigned to investigate TBP 546 and he recommended filing of information in January 1990. Special Prosecution O fficer adopted recommendation
6.
Held: Yes. Sandiganbayan should continue proceedings.
1.
a bar to the other. 2.
may involve same acts as in the administrative case, requires proof beyond
Hence, an information was filed with t he Sandiganbayan, docketed as Crim. Case
Icasiano filed a motion for reinvestigation on the ground that he has already been exonerated in Admin. Matter No. MTJ-87-81. Hence, the court ordered the prosecutor to look into administrative matter
8.
Special Prosecutor Querubin responded that there were no records of such administrative matter. Hence, Sandiganbayan denied motion for reinvestigation because seeing that the special prosecutor had no record, petitioner failed to present
An Administrative procedure need not strictly adhere to technical rules and substantial evidence is sufficient. A Criminal Case in the Sandiganbayan, although reasonable doubt.
14563. 7.
Distinction between an administrative and criminal case should be upheld. One is not
3.
To avail of the double jeopardy, the following requisites must concur: a.
a valid complaint or information;
b.
a competent court;
c.
a valid arraignment;
Consti 2
e.
the defendant was acquitted, or convicted, 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 e xpress consent
in the revised penal code defining the crime of falsification which was charged earlier and that their case be dismissed. People asserts that the plea o f double jeopardy is not tenable even if the case at bar was dismissed because according to them, it was done with the consent of the
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The temporary restraining order issued earlier is LIFTED;
the Sandiganbayan is ordered to proceed with Criminal Case No. 14563. PEOPLE VS. BALISACAN [17 SCRA 1119; G.R. NO. L-26376; 31 AUG 1966]
accused therefore waiving there defense of double jeopardy. The accused on the other hand, reiterated the fact that the dismissal was due to lack of merits of the prosecution which would 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 thus the appeal of the plaintiff.
Facts: Aurelio Balisacan was charged with homicide in the CFI of Ilocos Norte. Upon being
arraigned, he entered into a plea of guilty. In doing so, he was assisted y counsel. At his counsel de officio, he was allowed to present evidence and consequently testified that he stabbed the deceased in self-defense. In addition, he stated that he surrendered himself voluntarily to the
Issue: Whether or Not the grant of petition by the court would place the accused Sensio,
Millan and Jochico in double jeopardy
police authorities. On the basis of the testimony of the accused, he was acquitted. Thus, the prosecution appealed. Issue: Whether or Not the appeal placed the accused in double jeopardy. Held: The Supreme Court held that it is settle d that the existence of plea is an essential
requisite to double jeopardy. The accused had first entered a plea of guilty but however testified that he acted in complete self-defense. Said testimony had the effect of vacating his plea of guilty and the court a quo should have required him to plead a new charge, or at least direct that a new plea of not guilty be entered for him. This was not done. Therefore, there has been no standing of plea during the judgment of acquittal, so there can be no double jeopardy with respect to the appeal herein. PEOPLE VS. COURT OF SILAY [74 SCRA 248; G.R. NO. L-43790; 9 DEC 1976]
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. It is true that the criminal case of falsification was dismissed on a motion of the accused however this was a motion filed after the prosecution had rested its case, calling for the evidence beyond reasonable ground which the prosecution had not been able to do which would be tantamount to acquittal therefore will bar the prosecution of another case. As it was stated on the requirements of a valid defense of double jeopardy it says: That there should be a valid complaint, second would be that such complaint be filed before a competent court and to which the accused has pleaded and that defendant was previously acquitted, convicted or dismissed or otherwise te rminated without express consent of the accused in which were all present in the case at bar. There was indeed a valid, legitimate complaint and concern against the accused Sensio, Millan and Jochico which was filed at a competent court with jurisdiction on the said case. It was also mentioned that the accused pleaded not guilty and during the time of trial, it was proven that the case used
Facts: That sometime on January 4,1974, accused Pacifico Sensio, 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, weighed cane cars
therefore dismissing the case which translates to acquittal. It explained further that there are
No.1743,1686 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), Apparently, 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, 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. The three accused then were charged with “Falsification by private
trial. In the 2 requisites given, it was the first on t hat is very much applicable to our case at bar
individuals and use of falsified document”. After the prosecution had presented, the
where there was dismissal of the case due to i nsufficiency 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
Consti 2
ESMENA VS. POGOY [102 SCRA 861; G.R. NO. L-54110; 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.
Facts: Petitioners Esmeña and Alba were charged with grave coercion in the Court of Cebu City
for allegedly forcing Fr. Thomas Tibudan to withdraw a sum of money worth P5000 from the
[ G.R. NO. L-44205, FEBRUARY 1 6, 1993 ]PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON.
bank to be given to them because the priest lost in a game of chance. During arraignment,
GREGORIO G. PINEDA, BRANCH XXI, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, AND
petitioners pleaded “Not Guilty”. No trial came in after the arraignment due to the priest’s
CONSOLACION NAVAL, RESPONDENTS.
request to move it on another date. Sometime later Judge Pogoy issued an order setting the trial Aug.16,1979 but the fiscal informed the court that it received a telegram stating that t he complainant was sick. The accused invoked their right to speedy trial. Respondent judge dismissed the case because the trial was already dragging the accused and that the priest’s
telegram did not have a medical certificate attached to it in order for the court to recognize the complainant’s reason to be valid in order to reschedule again another hearing. After 27 days
the fiscal filed a motion to revive t he case and attached the medical certificate of the priest proving the fact that the priest was indeed sick of influenza. On Oct.24,1979, accused Esmeña and Alba filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of double jeopardy.
FACTS: That on or about the 17th day of August, 1971, in the municipality of Pasig, province of Rizal, Philippines, the above-named accused, being then private individual did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public document by m aking untruthful statements in a narration of facts, committed as follows: the said accused on August 17, 1971, executed a document entitled "Application For Registration" for parcels of land located at Taytay, Rizal, to the effect that She is the exclusive owner in fee simple of a parcel of land situated in Malaking
Issue: Whether or Not the revival of grave coercion case, which was dismissed earlier due to complainant’s failure to appear at the trial, would place the accused in double jeopardy
Bundok, Barrio Dolores, Taytay, Rizal with Psu-248206 and that she "does not know of any mortgage or encumbrance of any kind whatsoever affecting said land or that any person has estate or interest therein, legal or equitable, in possession remainder, reversion or expectancy", as a result of which the Court in its Decision of March 22, 1972 declared the
Held: Yes, revival of the case will put the accused in double jeopardy for the very reason that
the case has been dismissed already without the consent of the accused which would have an effect of an acquittal on the case filed. The dismissal was due to complainant’s incapability to present its evidence due to non appearance of the witnesses and complainant himself which would bar further prosecution of the defendant for the same offense. For double jeopardy to exist these three requisites should be present, that one, there is a valid complaint or information filed second, that it is done before a court of competent jurisdiction and third, that the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded to the complaint or information. In the case at bar, all three conditions were present, as the case filed was grave coercion, filed in a court of competent jurisdiction as to where the coercion took place and last the accused were arraigned and has pleaded to the complaint or the information. When these three conditions are present then the acquittal, conviction of the accused, and the dismissal or termination of the case without his express consent constitutes res judicata and is a bar to another
herein accused the true and absolute owner of said parcel of land free from all liens and encumbrances of any nature, when in truth and in fact the herein accused has already sold and encumbered to one Edilberto V. Ilano said parcel of land referred to above as can be gleaned from a document entitled "Kasulatan Ng Bilihan Ng Lupa Na May Pasubali O Condicion" dated August 12, 1969 and said Edilberto V. Ilano has already paid partial amount of P130,850.00 to the herein accused. On October 28, 1975, private respondent Consolacion Naval moved to quash the information for falsification, premised, among other things, on t he apprehension that she is i n danger of being condemned for an identical offense. The following day, Naval pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against her for falsification and on December 22, 1975, the court a quo denied her motion to quash. ISSUE:
prosecution for the offense charged. In the case, 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 t ime before judgment a motion
which would mean that respondents had no expressed consent t o the dismissal of the case
to quash on the ground of jeopardy.
Consti 2
unjustified postponements which prolong trial for an unreasonable length of time. In the facts above, there was no showing that there was an unjust delay caused by the prosecution, hence, HELD: It would now appear that prior conviction or acquittal in the first case, as long as the accused had entered his plea therein is no longer required in order that the accused may move to quash a second prosecution for the same offense on the ground of double jeopardy." Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered, and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused." PEOPLE VS. TAMPAL [244 SCRA 202; G.R. NO. 102485; 22 MAY 1995] Facts: Luis Tampal, Domingo Padumon, Arsenio Padumon, Samuel Padumon, Pablito Suco,
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. Wilfredo Ochotorena as presiding judge. However, only private respondents, Luis Tampal, Domingo Padumon, Arsenio Padumon, and Samuel Padumon were arrested, while the others r emained at large. The case was set for hearing on July 26, 1991, but Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Wilfredo Guantero moved for postponement due to his failure to contact the material witnesses. The case was reset without any objection from the defense counsel. The case was called on September 20, 1991 but the prosecutor was not present. The respondent judge considered the absence of the prosecutor as unjustified, and dismissed the criminal case for failure to prosecute. The prosecution filed a motion for reconsidereation, claiming that his absence was because such date was a Muslim holiday and the office of the Provincial prosecutor was closed on that day. The motion was denied by respondent judge. Issues:
(1) Whether or Not the postponement is a violation of the right of the accused to a speedy disposition of their cases. (2) Whether or Not the dismissal serves as a bar to reinstatement of the case. Held: In determining the right of an accused to speedy disposition of their case, courts should
the respondent judge should have given t he prosecution a fair opportunity to prosecute i ts case. The private respondents cannot invoke their right against double jeopardy. In several cases it 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, but in this case, this does not apply, considering that the rights of the accused to a speedy trial was not violated by the State. Therefore, the order of dismissal is annulled and the case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings.
