You are on page 1of 5

-----Attachment of jeopardy

-----

People v. Ylagan
– physical injuries – A defendant is in legal jeopardy when he was put to trial in the following conditions: a. in a court of competent jurisdiction b. upon a valid complaint or information c. after he has been arraigned d. after he has pleaded to the information “without the consent of the accused” – does not mean “over the objection of the accused” or “against the will of the accused” ; mere silence or failure to object

People v. Balisacan
– homicide – Existence of a plea is an essential requisite in order that the accused may be in jeopardy. In this case, he first entered a plea of guilty and subsequently, he was ed to testify on the mitigating circumstances and he said he acted in self defense: this had the effect of vacating his plea of guilty; court should have required a new plea.

Cudia v. CA
– requisites in order to successfully invoke the defense of double jeopardy/ substantiate an claim of jeopardy –

a. a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second b. first jeopardy must have been validly terminated c. 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 of frustration thereof. Jeopardy does not attach where a defendant pleads guilty to a defective indictment that is voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution

Obsania – rape – In order that the protection against double jeopardy may inure in favor of an accused.Termination of jeopardy ----1. CA – double homicide – . a judgment in a criminal case becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served or the defendant ha waived in writing his appeal. People v. Bustamante v. Maceren – reopening of a case – No re-opening of a case may be ordered of a criminal case after accused has started serving his sentence. a valid complaint or information b. defendant had pleaded to the charge d. reinstating the case Cuison v. a competent court c. defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his consent dismissal with express consent of the defendant constitutes waiver Rivera v. the following requisites must have obtained in the original prosecution/ double jeopardy attaches when: a.----. withdrawal of plea of guilty does not constitute waiver of defense of double jeopardy timely invoked. People – transportation of marijuana – VERBAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL which was not reduced into writing may be set aside by the judge and enter a new one duly signed by him.

lead pipe – It is well settled that when an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court. People – homicide. Courts have the inherent power to amend their decisions to make them conformable to law and justice. the rules do not distinguish whether it occurs at the level of the trial court or an appeal on a judgment of conviction. doctrine that double jeopardy may not be invoked after trial may apply only when the Court finds that the criminal trial was a sham because the prosecution representing the sovereign people in the criminal case was denied due process. Mendoza – homicide through reckless imprudence – General rule: dismissal of criminal case upon motion or with express consent of accused will not be a bar to the subsequent prosecution of the accused for the same offense. the imposition of the criminal accountability – doctrine on double jeopardy same as in Cudia and Obsania cases. This amounts to a judgment of acquittal on the merits which bars the subsequent prosecution of accused for the same offense Oriente v. Where an acquittal is concerned. liability for civil indemnity.The promulgation of only one part of the decision i. change in penalty by the RTC did not involve the consideration of new evidence but a mere “correction” People v. An acquittal is final and unappealable ON THE GROUND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY whether it happens at the trial court of before the Court of Appeals. People v. Salcedo v. he waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy. is NOT A BAR. This firmly establishes the finality-of-acquittal rule.e. Cajigal . to the subsequent promulgation of the other part. EXCEPTION TO THE RULE: when dismissal is grounded upon the right of the accused to a speedy trial. Velasco – homicide and frustrated homicide – Requisites to successfully invoke double jeopardy (refer to Obsania).

where an offense is punished by different sections of a statute. where an offense is penalized by an ordinance and a statute. not all technical elements of the first offense need be present in the definition of the second offense. claim of double jeopardy is available even if prior offense charged under an ordinance is different from subsequent offense charged in a statue where both offenses spring from the same act.Same offense. Relova – theft of electricity. Damages.– homicide to murder – The change of the offense charged from homicide to murder is merely a formal amendment and not a substantial amendment or a substitution. ----. punishable by an ordinance and the RPC – A person who was charged for violating a city ordinance which was dismissed for prescription of the offense may not be charged again under the RPC. case will be remanded to the court of origin) . City Court of Manila – the defense of double jeopardy cannot prosper when there is no identity of the offenses charged. ordinance and states ----People v. An appeal by the prosecution from the order of dismissal by the trial court SHALL NOT constitute double jeopardy if: a. b. For double jeopardy to be available. the inquiry is on the identity of acts. In contrast. c. for the purpose of double jeopardy. Identity of offenses (examining elements of the two offenses). dismissal is NOT an acquittal or based upon consideration of the evidence or of the merits of the case. the inquiry. question to be passed upon the appellate court is purely legal (if dismissal is incorrect. identity of acts (examining the locus or such acts in time and place). the dismissal is made upon motion or with express consent of the defendant. civil liability – will continue to be heard People v. Evidence required to prove one offense is not the same evidence required to prove the other. is on identity of offenses charged.

where the accused was charged with physical injuries and after conviction. there is no possibility for the accused. Buling – [less] serious physical injuries. X-ray. People – physical injuries. There was therefore no supervening fact which would justify application of the rule of double jeopardy. the injured person dies. People v. homicide – The rule of identity does not apply when the second offense was not in existence at the time of the first prosecution. to be convicted for an offense that was then inexistent.----. during the first prosecution. . for the simple reason that in such case. Thus. two physicians. two complaints The prosecution of the accused for less serious physical injuries is a bar for his prosecution with serious physical injuries. If the X-ray examination disclosed the existence of a fracture when the second examination was made. this must have been present during the first examination. injured party dies.Rule on supervening facts – Melo v. the charged for homicide against the same accused does not put him twice in jeopardy.