This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
Sec. 14. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense w/o due process of law.
restricted to criminal cases only and purely to their procedural requirements
Due process in general - covers both substantive & procedural - applies to all kinds of proceedings (civil, criminal and administrative) Criminal Due Process - requires that the accused be tried by an IMPARTIAL & COMPETENT COURT in accordance w/ the PROCEDURE prescribed by law and w/ proper observance of all the RIGHTS accorded to him under the Consti and applicable statutes. R to a preliminary investigation – not Constitutional but a statutory R; denial of this R, in absence of a valid waiver, violates due process. Fair trial – accused has a R to complain if the judge has a personal/pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case Galman v Sandiganbayan: SC created a fact-finding commission w/c, after holding extensive hearings, concluded that the trial had been rigged and the acquittal pre-ordained by no less than President Marcos himself. The Court, adopting these findings, annulled the proceedings and ordered a new trial of the case, declaring that the interference and pressure of Marcos was violative of due process and prevented a fair and impartial trial.
Scope - as long as the question will tend to incriminate o in all other cases, he may not refuse to answer provided that the question is relevant o where the question asked relates to a past criminality for w/c the witness can no longer be prosecuted o where he has been previously granted immunity under a validly enacted statute - R is against NOT all compulsion but testimonial compulsion only. (Hence, a person may be compelled to submit to a physical exam of his body to determine involvement in an offense of w/c he is accused) o A person charged w/ rape may be tested for gonorrhea, w/c might have been transmitted to the victim o A woman accused of adultery may be examined to determine if she was pregnant - Applies to the compulsion for the production of documents, papers and chattels that may be used as evidence against the witness, except where the State has a R to inspect the same, such as the books of accts of corps, under PP. - Also protects the accused against any attempt to compel him to furnish a specimen of handwriting in connection w/ his prosecution for falsification. When Available - may be invoked only when and as the incriminating question is asked, since the witness has no way of knowing in advance the nature/effect of the question to be put to him (for WITNESSES) - as for the ACCUSED HIMSELF, he can refuse at the outset & altogether to take the stand as a witness for the prosecution Waiver - the R against self-incrimination may be waived, either directly of by failure to invoke it, provided the waiver is certain and unequivocal and intelligently, understandingly and willingly made. o One who under a subpoena duces tecum voluntarily surrenders an incriminating paper w/c is put in evidence against him is deemed to have waived the privilege o An accused who takes the witness stand and offers testimony on his behalf - The witness may be cross-examined and asked incriminating questions on any matter he testified to on direct examination
Sec. 17 No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
intended to prevent the State, w/ all its coercive powers, from extracting from the suspect testimony that may convict him. Because a person subjected to such compulsion is likely to perjure himself for his own protection. Available not only in criminal prosecutions but also in all other gov’t proceedings, including civil actions, and administrative/legislative investigations May be claimed not only by the accused, but also by any witness to whom an incriminating question is addressed.
Art 3, Sec. 12. “(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.”
further inquiries until he has consulted w/ an atty and thereafter consents to be questioned. P v Ramos: the admissions of the accused during custodial investigation were excluded. Although there was evidence that he had been apprised of his Rs, the SC observed that accused has only finished Grade VI, w/c means that he is not adequately educated to understand fully and fairly the significance of his constitutional Rs to silence and to counsel. It is not enough that the police investigator merely inform him of his R to silence and to counsel. The officer must have patience in explaining these Rs to him. P v Galit: SC rejected the confession because of the proved torture inflicted on the accused. Moreover, before his interrogation, he was informed of his Rs in a lengthy statement followed by the question of whether he was ready to make his statement, to w/c he replied, “opo”. Such a long question followed by a monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the requirements that the accused be informed of his Rs. P v Pecardal: at the time the accused was apprehended & interrogated, he was only 17y/o. Confession rejected. P v Barros: The SC reminded that the swearing officers shld have the confessants physically examined by independent doctors before administering the oath, to discourage attempts to secure confessions through violence. Rs that may be waived ONLY in writing AND in the presence of counsel (Art 3 Sec 12 (1)): 1. R to remain silent 2. To have competent & independent counsel 3. Waiver of counsel’s services Gamboa v Cruz: the R to counsel attached upon the start of an investigation, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information, confessions or admissions from the accused P v Macam: SC: As a result of the changes in patterns of police investigation, today’s accused confronts both expert adversaries and the judicial system well before his trial begins. It is appropriate to extend the counsel guarantee to critical stages of prosecution before the trial. A police line-up is considered a ‘critical’ stage of the proceedings. After the start of the custodial investigation, any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up is inadmissible. This is particularly true in the case at bar, where the police officers first talked to victims before the confrontation was held. The circs were such as to impart improper suggestions on the minds of the victims that may lead to a mistaken identification. Appellants were handcuffed and had contusions on their faces.OVERTURNED by P v Lamsing. NOW, the prevailing doctrine is that the R to counsel is not available during a police line-up as this is not considered part of the custodial investigation.
Custodial Investigation – any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way - includes the practice of issuing an ‘invitation’ to a person who is investigated in connection w/ an offense he is suspected to have committed, w/o prejudice to the liability of the ‘inviting’ officer for any violation of law. Miranda v Arizona: USSC: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial investigation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against selfincriminations. By custodial investigation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused-persons of their R of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the ff measures are required: 1. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a R to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him; and that he has a R to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed; 2. The defendant may waive effectuation of these Rs, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. 3. If however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult w/ an atty before speaking there can be no questioning. 4. Likewise, if the indiv is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the R to refrain from answering any
P v Compil: As to when the R to counsel starts: SC: The operative act, is when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who has been taken into custody by the police to carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting incriminatory statements.
P v Lucero: the counsel de oficio was present at the start of
the custodial investigation of the accused but left after a while to attend to personal matters. The next morning, the police took Lucero and his signed confession to the lawyer’s house, and the lawyer asked him if he had freely signed it. When the accused said yes, obviously under pressure from his military escort, the lawyer also signed the confession, to authenticate its regularity. The SC rejected the confession, holding that the Consti requires not just any kind of counsel but effective and vigilant counsel.
only persons under detention may petition for bail, for the purpose of bail is to secure their provisional release. However, bail cannot be denied simply because the person detained has not yet been formally charged in court but is still under investigation for the commission of an offense (if one who has alrdy been indicted is entitled to bail, there is no reason why another who has not yet been charged – and against whom a prima facie case has not yet been established – shld be denied a similar R.
Rule 114 of ROC: “any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail w/ any court may apply for bail w/ any court in the province, city, or mun where he is held. Exception: any offense w/c under the law existing at the time of its commission and at the time of the app for bail may be punished by RP/death, even if a lesser penalty may be imposed upon conviction. Nevertheless, the accused is still entitled to bail if, say, he is charged w/ murder and the evidence adduced by the prosecution at the hearing on the petition for bail indicates only a case of homicide. Now, ROC: all persons in custody shall be entitled to bail as a matter of R except those charged w/ a capital offense or an offense w/c, under the law at the time of its commission and at the time of the app for bail, is punishable by RP, AND when the evidence of guilt is strong. (Replacing the old rule that bail shall be demandable before conviction, but may be granted only in the discretion of the judge after conviction in the RTC). , even if the crime imputed to the accused is punishable by RP, he is still entitled to bail if the evidence of guilt is not strong. This does not have to be established by him; it is for the prosecution to prove the contrary. P v Cortez: SC: where the accused is convicted of a capital offense or of an offense punishable by RP, his bail shall be canceled and shall be placed in confinement pending the resolution of his appeal. Hearing on the petition for bail – required to satisfy due process, but this may be summary in nature or held in the course of the trial itself. Mere probability of escape does not warrant denial of the R to bail. REMEDY: increase the bail, provided it is not excessive. But after conviction in the RTC, the accused may be denied bail if there is risk of his absconding. dela Rama v People’s court: SC granted bail even when evidence of guilt was strong, in view of the illness of the accused w/c required his hospitalization.
P v Suarez: a re-enactment of a crime in the absence of counsel is inadmissible evidence against the accused P v Bonola: SC held as invalid the waiver of the suspect’s custodial Rs w/o the assistance of counsel.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.”
- provoked by the widespread rumors and open complaints during the martial law regime of the many abuses committed by the military. Under RA 7309: victims of unjust imprisonment, arbitrary or illegal detention, or of violent crimes may file a claim for damages w/ the Board of Claims under the DOJ. For victims of unjust imprisonment/detention, the award shall be not more than P1k for each month of imprisonment. In all other cases, the award shall not exceed P10k or the expenses incurred for hospitalization, med treatment, loss of wage, loss of support, or other expenses directly related to the injury w/c ever is lower, w/o prejudice to the R of the claimant to seek other remedies under existing laws. RIGHT TO BAIL
Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged w/ offenses punishable by RP when the evidence of guilt is strong, shall before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The R to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
Bail – the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court as may be required.
Rule 114, Sec 6, ROC: the judge, in fixing a reasonable amt of bail, shld consider primarily, but not exclusively: 1. the financial ability of the accused to give bail; 2. the nature and circumstances of the offense; 3. the penalty for the offense charged; 4. the character & reputation of the accused; 5. his age and health; 6. the weight of evidence against him; 7. the probability of his appearing at the trial; 8. the forfeiture of other bonds by him; 9. the fact that he was a fugitive from justice when arrested; 10. and the pendency of other cases in w/c he is under bond. - guidelines to be observed to prevent violation of the prohibition against excessive bail. RIGHT TO BE HEARD by himself & through counsel
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
he is poor or grant him a reasonable time to procure an atty of his own. P v Magsi: the judgment was set aside wherein the accused entered a plea of guilty while the counsel de oficio failed to explain to him the meaning of the accusation against him and the consequences of his guilty plea. However, the R to be silent and to the assistance of counsel may be waived during a custodial investigation. The R to counsel does not cease after trial, but continues even where the case is appealed. NATURE & CAUSE OF ACCUSATION - the defendant is entitled to know the nature & cause of the accusation against him so he can adequately prepare for his defense. Rules of Court: ‘whenever possible, a complaint/information should state the DESIGNATION given to the offense by the statue, besides the statement of the ACTS/OMISSIONS constituting the same, and if there is no such designation, REFERENCE shld be made to the section/subsection of the statue punishing the crime.” The acts/omissions complained of as constituting the offense must be stated in ORDINARY and CONCISE LANGUAGE w/o repetition, not necessarily in the terms of the statue defining the offense, but in such form as is sufficient to enable the person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce judgment. The DESCRIPTION and not the designation of the offense is controlling. Soriano v Sandiganbayan: a prosecutor entrapped by the NBI was charged w/ and convicted of violating Sec 3(b) of the Anti-graft & Corrupt Practices Act. The SC agreed w/ him that the said law was inapplicable but rejected his submission that he could also not be convicted of Bribery under the RPC because this would violate his constitutional R to be informed of the nature & cause of the accusation against him. Justice Abad Santos: “A reading of the information clearly makes out a case of bribery.” P v Ramirez: a person charged w/ rape, of w/c he was later absolved, could not be convicted of qualified seduction, w/c was not included in the information. A charge for the latter crime shld be filed in w/c all the elements thereof, including the virginity of the victim shld be alleged. P v Abino: convicting the appellant of rape by intimidation under an information charging him w/ raping his daughter while she was asleep & unconscious would violate his constitutional R to be informed of the nature & cause of the accusation against him.
Assistance of Counsel R to counsel – begins from the time a person is taken into custody & placed under investigation for the commission of a crime. - also important when he is already in trial and confronted by a skilled & experienced prosecutor Counsel de oficio – appointed for a person who cannot afford the services of a retained lawyer even in spite of the objection of the accused. - the duty of the court is not ended w/ such appointment, as it should also see to it that the counsel does his duty by the defendant - counsel de oficio shld not merely make the motions defending the accused but exert his utmost efforts as if he were representing a paying client. In criminal proceedings, R to counsel is never subject to waiver. P v Holgado: In criminal cases, there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given an opportunity to be heard by counsel. Even the most intelligent/educated man may have no skill in the science of law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and w/o counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty, but because he does not know how to establish his innocence. It is not enough for the Court to apprise an accused of his R to have an atty, it is not enough to ask him whether he desires to have an atty, but it is essential that the court should assign one de oficio for him if he so desires and
P v Montes: the charge of rape was not conclusively proved but the trial court nevertheless sentenced the accused to life imprisonment plus civil damages for having ‘indirectly caused’ the death of the complainant who had taken her life 2 days after the alleged incident. SC: the judgment may indicate that the accused was convicted of homicide. If this is so, the lower court is in grave error for he was never charged w/ the said offense; he was accused of and tried for rape. P v Ortega: a person charged at his arraignment w/ homicide by drowning could not be convicted of homicide by stabbing, w/c was not the crime alleged in the information. Void-for-Vagueness Rule: The defendant is denied the R to be informed of the charge against him, and to due process as well, where the statute itself is couched in such indefinite language that it is not possible for men of ordinary intelligence to determine therefrom what acts or omissions are punished. Estrada v Sandiganbayan: Estrada invoked the void-forvagueness rule in questioning the Plunder Law because of his ambiguity in failing to define w/ precision certain words and phrase in many of its provisions. SC rejected his claim, stating: The test in determining whether a criminal statue is void for uncertainty is whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice. The vagueness doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statue to be upheld – not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude, as pet seems to suggest. Flexibility, rather than meticulous specificity is permissible as long as the metes & bounds of the statute are clearly delineated. An arraignment assures that he be fully acquainted w/ the nature of the crime imputed to him and the circumstances under w/c it is allegedly committed. It is thus a vital aspect of the constitutional Rs guaranteed him. P v Crisologo: a deaf-mute was accused of robbery w/ homicide, but arraignment was deferred for 6yrs because there was no sign language expert to assist him. Finally waiving the reading of information, he was tried, still w/o the assistance of a sign language expert, and was eventually convicted. SC reversed, declaring that the absence of a qualified interpreter in sign language and of any other means, whether in writing or otherwise, to inform the accused of the charges against him denied the accused of due process. R TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC TRIAL - no less than “the cold neutrality of an impartial judge” - judge must not only BE impartial, but must also APPEAR TO BE impartial
Ignacio v Villaluz: Respondent judge had previously convicted the pet of arson, holding that the motive for the crime was to conceal the acts of malversation committed by the accused. When he was subsequently prosecuted for malversation before the same judge, the pet moved for the latter’s disqualification on the ground that he could not be expected to be objective and impartial in the trial of this case. The judge denied the motion, and the pet went on certiorari to the SC, where he was sustained. P v Opida: the conviction was reversed after the SC found that the trial judge was biased and had obviously prejudged the accused because of their appearance & criminal record. Publicity of Trial GR: 1. Publicity of trial is necessary to prevent abuses that may be committed by the court to the prejudice of the defendant. 2. The people have a R to attend the proceedings not only because of their interest therein but also so they can see whether or not the constitutional safeguards for the benefit of the accused are being observed. 3. The accused is also entitled to the company of his relatives and friends to give him the moral support he needs during his ordeal. : Exception: The court may bar the public in certain cases, like rape trials, where the purpose of the spectators in attending might be only to pander to their morbid curiosity, more so since their presence is likely to inhibit testimony and embarrass some of the parties. Speedy Trial – one free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays and is intended to relieve the accused of needless anxieties an inconveniences before sentence is pronounced upon him.
Sec 16. All persons shall have the R to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Conde v Rivera: SC dismissed all charges against an accused who was required to “dance attendance on courts” and subjected to a number of unjustified postponements that resulted in unconscionable delay of her trial. Where a prosecuting officer, w/o good cause, secures postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a reasonable period of time, as in this instance for more than a year, the accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information, or if he be restrained of his liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom. Martin v Ver: the R to a speedy trial, w/c begins from the filing of the information, cannot be quantified into a specified number of days/months but must be examined in the light of the surrounding circumstances such as the unavailability of witnesses.
Aquino v Military Commission No. 2: Pet was sustained in his refusal to be present at his own trial, w/c he claimed was a mere mockery because his conviction had already been pre-ordained. SC: while the trial is the most important part of the proceedings against the accuse, it has been held that the R to be present thereat is a personal R & may be validly waived. Petitioner Nonetheless, the presence of the accused may be required if it is necessary for the purposes of identification, that is where the prosecution intends to introduce witnesses who will identify him. R to be present at trial may be validly waived under: Trial in Absentia
Sec 14(2) after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
GR: The testimony of the witness is subj to crossexamination by defense counsel, save in cases provided in the ROC (like the dying declaration). Depositions & ex parte affidavits are inadmissible for examination on their statements by the judge and the accused. hearsay
Talino v Sandiganbayan: the SC reiterated the rule that
where several co-accused are given a separate trial, the evidence given against them at the other trial where they had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses is not admissible against them.
If a prosecution witness dies before his crossexamination can be completed, his direct testimony cannot be stricken off the record, provided the material points of his direct testimony had been covered on cross. COMPULSORY PROCESS
..and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
Requisites of Trial in Absentia: 1. The accused has already been arraigned; 2. He has been duly notified of the trial; and 3. His failure to appear is unjustified. Borja v Mendoza: a judgment of conviction was set aside by the SC when it appeared that the accused had been tried and convicted in his absence before he had been formally arraigned. The indispensable requisite for trial in absentia is that it should come AFTER arraignment. However, trial in absentia does not abrogate the provisions of RoC regarding the forfeiture of the bail bod if the accused fails to appear at his trial. Manotoc v CA: a person granted bail while facing estafa charges wanted to leave for abroad to attend to certain business matters. Permission having been denied, he went to the SC, where the denial was sustained. SC: A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the PH, as this is a necessary consequence of the nature & function of a bail bond. RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION
To meet witnesses face to face
Accused is entitled to the issuance of: 1. Subpoena 2. Subpoena duces tecum For the purpose of compelling the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence that he may need for his defense. Failure to obey the process is punishable as contempt of court; if necessary, it witness may even be arrested so he can give the needed evidence. Must be invoked during the trial. Failure to do so constitutes a waiver that cannot be rectified or undone on appeal. PROHIBITED PUNISHMENTS
Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. (2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
US v Javier: SC declared that the R to confrontation intends to secure the accused in the R to be tried, so far as facts provable by witnesses are concerned, by only such witnesses as meet him face to face at the trial, who gave their testimony in his presence, and give to the accused an opportunity of cross-examination. It was intended to prevent conviction of the accused upon deposition or ex parte affidavits, and particularly to preserve the R of the accused to test the recollection of the witness in the exercise of the R of cross-examination. Reasons: There is less propensity to lie on the part of a witness when actually confronted by the accused than when the testimony is given behind his back. The presence of the witness at the trial will enable the court to observe his demeanor and gauge the credibility of his testimony.
Prohibited punishments – penalty must be inhuman and barbarous and shocking to the conscience. Torture is a cruel punishment because it involves a deliberate design to increase the suffering of the prisoner in a manner so flagrant and oppressive as to revolt the moral sense of the community. But where an unforeseeable accident adds to the suffering of the convict, a penalty otherwise valid does not become cruel or unusual. Death Sentence – not allowed except as a penalty for heinous offenses. Echegaray v Sec of Justice: Any infliction of pain in lethal injection is merely incidental in carrying out the death penalty and does not fall w/in the constitutional proscription against cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment.
P v Estoista: it takes more than merely being harsh,
excessive, out or proportion, or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitution. To come under the ban, the punishment must be ‘flagrantly and plainly oppressive,’ ‘wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community.’
A penalty not normally proportionate to the offense may be imposed in some instances w/o violation of the Constitution. This would be allowed, for example where the offense has become so rampant as to require the adoption of a more effective deterrent, like the punishment for stealing jeeps, or coconuts by the RPC as Qualified Theft. The same rules are also applicable to the prohibition against the imposition of excessive fines. The judge, in the determination of the fine to be imposed, must take into acct the financial condition of the convict, to prevent the fine from becoming excessive, and also discriminatory. DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Section 21. 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.
Double Jeopardy or Res judicata in prison grey – prohibits the prosecution again of any person for a crime of w/c he has previously been acquitted or convicted.
Rule 117, Sec 7 of ROC: When an accused has been convicted/acquitted or the case against him has been dismissed or otherwise terminated w/o his express consent, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction, and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same of frustration thereof, or for any offense w/c necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint.
Requisites of Double Jeopardy 1. A valid complaint or information; - A prosecution based on an invalid complaint or information cannot lead to a valid judgment. 2. Filed before a competent court; - A court w/o jurisdiction cannot render a valid judgment. - Where a court martial an a civil court have concurrent jurisdiction, a decision by one court will bar another prosecution for the same offense in the other court - Where an information is motu proprio dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by a court w/c is actually competent to hear it, the dismissal will inure to the benefit of the accused, who is entitled to plead double jeopardy
3. To w/c the defendant had pleaded (valid plea); - A defendant is never placed under jeopardy until after he shall have pleaded to the charge against him during the arraignment - A defective plea shall not bar another case against the defendant, BUT in P v Balicasan: the accused, after pleading guilty, testified to prove mitigating circumstances. SC: said testimony had the effect of vacating his plea of guilty. There having been no standing plea at the time the court rendered its final judgment of acquittal, there can be no double jeopardy, w/ respect to the appeal herein by the govt. 4. And of w/c he had been previously acquitted or convicted or w/c was dismissed or otherwise terminated w/o his express consent (termination of case). - Acquittal or Conviction: It can no longer be set aside by the court to order a new trial or impose a new sentence - Dismissal: because its consequences may vary accdg to the nature of the dismissal and w/n it was expressly consented to by the defendant. GR: A dismissal, w/ the express consent of the accused will not bar another prosecution for the same offense, as the said consent is considered a waiver of his R against double jeopardy. The consent, to be effective, must be express, and this excludes mere silence or failure of the accused to object to the dismissal. : BUT where the accused succeeds in having the case dismissed on the ground that the information is insufficient, he cannot upon the filing of a corrected information invoke double jeopardy by claiming that the original information was sufficient. : Neither can he, upon the dismissal of a case on his motion for lack of jurisdiction, question his prosecution for the same offense before another court, on the ground that the first court had jurisdiction after all. Appeal of Prosecution The prosecution can appeal where the accused is deemed to have waived or is estopped from invoking his R against double jeopardy. P v Obsania: the accused, after the prosecution for rape against him was on his motion dismissed for insufficiency of the complaint, invoked double jeopardy when the order of dismissal was appealed by the prosecution.
The sister doctrines of waiver & estoppel requires 2 sine qua non conditions: a. The dismissal must be sought or induced by the defendant personally, or through his counsel; and b. Such dismissal must not be on the merits and must not necessarily amount to an acquittal. The defense of double jeopardy will be available to the accused where the dismissal of the prosecution against him, even w/ his express consent, was based on insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution, or denial of his R to a speedy trial, because these dismissals are considered in the nature of an acquittal. P v City Court of Silay: the order of dismissal was based on the merits and, although erroneous, amounted to an acquittal w/c could not be appealed by the Govt. Esmena v Pogoy: the fiscal was not ready because his witness was absent. The accused insisted on their R to speedy trial. The judge on his own volition provisionally dismissed the case w/o the defendants’ express consent. SC: the case is barred by double jeopardy. The grant of a motion to quash, w/c is filed before the defendant makes his plea, can be appealed as he has not yet been placed in jeopardy. Where the accused is acquitted w/o giving the prosecution its day in court, this denial of due process may be validly appealed. The prosecution cannot appeal from an acquittal or for the purpose of increasing or modifying the a penalty even if the decision be not in accordance w/ law. Crimes Covered If the 4 elements of double jeopardy are present, the accused may not be prosecuted anew for: 1. The original offense; 2. For any attempt to commit the same; or 3. Frustration thereof 4. For any offense w/c necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the original complaint or information. A person acquitted for murder cannot be prosecuted again for the same murder, or for homicide, as this is embraced in the first offense. If the original prosecution for homicide fails, he cannot again be indicted, this time for murder, as this embraces the original charge. He may not be prosecuted first for attempted robbery and then for frustrated robbery, or vice versa. Or for slight phys injuries, and then for less serious phys injuries and then again for serious phys injuries arising from the same act.
Doctrine of Supervening Event Under the doctrine of supervening even however, the accused may be prosecuted for another offense if a subsequent development changes the character of the first indictment under w/c he may have already been charged or convicted. A person convicted of phys injuries may still be prosecuted for homicide if the victim dies later P v Adil: the accused was first prosecuted for slight physical injuries, but after he had pleaded not guilty the charge was changed to serious physical injuries when it appeared that the wounds inflicted on the victim, after healing, had left permanent scars on his face. SC: there was no double jeopardy as the deformity did not exist and could not have been apprehended at the time the first information was filed.
Rule 117 Sec.7 of the RoC: The conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense w/c necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or information under any of the ff circumstances: a) The graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act/omission constituting the former charge; b) The facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered only after the filing of the former complaint or information; or c) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made w/o the consent of the prosecutor and of the offended party.
Inseparable Offenses GR: Where one offense is inseparable from another and proceeds from the same act, they cannot be the subject of separate prosecutions. A person indicted for smoking opium cannot be charged also w/ possessing opium. One who steals several things from the same person on the same occasion can be charged w/ only one crime of theft. One already convicted of less serious phys injuries cannot be later prosecuted for assault on a person in authority committed on the same occasion against the same victim. : However, it is possible for one act to give rise to several crimes, in w/c case separate prosecutions for each crime may be filed, provided the elements of the several crimes are not identical. A person driving w/o license is involved in an accident may be prosecuted both for damage to property and violation of the Motor Vehicles Law A pardonee who commits the crime of falsification and thus violates the condition of his pardon can be prosecuted for both offenses w/o denial of the R against double jeopardy. Carrying an unlicensed firearm during the election period constitutes 2 offenses arising from the same act that can be separately prosecuted. Conviction of illegal recruitment under the LC does not bar prosecution for estafa.
Act Violating Law and Ordinance
Constitution: 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.
P v Relova: a person was charged under a city ordinance
A person convicted of jueteng under a mun. ordinance may not again be charged w/ the same act under RPC.
Analysis of Double Jeopardy Provision in the Bill of Rs by CJ Concepcion in Yap v Lutero 2 Kinds of Double Jeopardy Prohibits double jeopardy of punishment for the same offense 2nd sentence
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.
w/ having installed a device in his ice plant that lowered his electric meter readings to the prejudice of the city govt. The information was however dismissed on the ground of prescription, having been filed more than 2 months after discovery of the offense. Later the same defendant was charged anew, this time for Theft of Electric current under the RPC. SC sustained the dismissal by the respondent judge. While the 1st sentence sets forth the GR, the 2nd sentence embodies an exception to the GR, provided that both offenses spring from the same act or set of facts.
1st sentence of clause 20, Sec 1 Article III:
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
Prohibits double jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. One may be twice put in jeopardy of punishment of the same act, provided that he is charged w/ different offenses, or the offense charged in one case is not included in, or does not include the crime charged in the other case.
Contemplates double jeopardy of punishment for the same act. Applies even if the offenses charged are not the same, owing to the fact that one constitutes a violation of an ordinance and the other a violation of a statute. If the 2 charges are based on one and the same act, conviction/acquittal under either the law or the ordinance shall bar prosecution under the other. Incidentally, such conviction/acquittal is not indispensable to sustain the plea of double jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. So long as jeopardy has attached under one of the informations charging the said offense, the defense may be availed of in the other case involving the same offense, even if there has been neither conviction nor acquittal in either case. Exception to the GR
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.