The same evidence test.

So if the same evidence would carry a conviction in the second case, then the
case for the same offense, then there is double jeopardy. Alright that’s the first sentence, we now go to
the second sentence. Same offense, actually meaning same physical act. If event is valid by an
ordinance, and etc, yun yung second paragraph, second sentence. That is that class of double jeopardy is
same act. It is predicated on the principle that one criminal act must resolve in one criminal offense. It
cannot be that it push with constitute 2 offenses even if there are two laws that will govern the same.
Okay? Same criminal intent. Yung criminal intent ng controlling noon. Nung tinulak mo siya at
nasagasaan siya ng upcoming motor vehicle, there was one criminal intent. Ano yung unang case mo
dun? Probably, under the Revised Penal Code or under another municipal ordinance, parehong, both of
which defines this is a crime. Hindi pwedeng dalawang crime. Bakit? Because there is only one criminal
intent. One act. Clear? Alright. Read People vs. Bovelo. (not sure, di ko masyadong naintindihan, search
niyo na lang po. Hehe.  ) It will demonstrate yung one act. Also, Yap vs. Luther cited by Bernas. Rule
when one act violates two different statutes or two different provisions of the statute. If the one act
resolves into distinct offenses, prosecution under one is a bar to the prosecution under the other. So
again, there must only be one crime committed. If the senior criminal act is impelled by a senior criminal
intent, the resolve that harm cannot speak into two different offenses. Read Mello vs. People. It is a
19kopong kopong case kaya lang, the jurisprudence still holding new supervening fact. It appears that a
case was filed against the accused for Serious Physical Injuries. Okay. While the case was still being
processed, the victim died. So that prosecution moved to amend the criminal complain to Murder. The
Supreme Court said, it can’t be done because it is a supervening act. That withstanding that there was
already a double jeopardy, ordinarily already attached, there was filed in a competent court, there was
jurisdiction, it was not for the same offense. Because there is a supervening act, the Serious Physical
Injuries at first became a Murder. Mello vs. People.

Okay. Appeals. The protection against second jeopardy not only means that an accused cannot be
prosecuted the second time at the same offense. But also, that the prosecution cannot appeal a
judgment of acquittal. That is why, if the accused is acquitted, the prosecution, no matter how
convinced it is that there should be conviction cannot appeal for the acquittal. That is included in the
rule against Double Jeopardy. A judgment of acquittal rendered within the court’s jurisdiction even if
erroneous ends the case finally. Provided that the judge considered the evidence even if his
appreciation of the evidence is leading to acquittal is erroneous, an appeal for motion for
reconsideration by the prosecution will not be allot Double Jeopardy. When a judgment of acquittal or
dismissal of the merits is void for lack of jurisdiction, the judgment cannot be based, cannot be a base
for a plea of Double Jeopardy. Ouster from jurisdiction can come about through a judge abuse of
constitutional rights such as the hide constitution a day in court. ( di ko naintindihan masyado). The case
on hand here is the Galman vs. Sandiganbayan. The Galman vs. Sandiganbayan case is an offshoot of the
assassination of Ninoy Aquino in August 21, 1983. There was a first case that was filed against General
Olivas ( ewan ko kung tama ), the officers and men of the ABSECOM, Executive Command and many
others. I was representing Prospero General Olivas. There was , the case was completed, there was trial,
etc. and it resulted of conviction of several of the ABSECON people, an acquittal of their acquittal.
Unfortunately, after the trial. Tita Cory became President, So she was President and Ninoy Aquino is her
husband. So they reopened the case violating the jurisprudence of Double Jeopardy, violating the
jurisprudence on finality of judgment. But because she was the husband of the victim in this case, there
was the second trial. The justification of the Supreme Court is that reopening of the case rested on the
premise that the proceedings in Sandiganbayan characterized by a grave abuse of discretion amounting
to laws on jurisdiction. Proceedings would be invalid and the acquittal may not really acquit and did not
tell for terminate the case. This decision went against an existing jurisprudence that says that a
judgment of acquittal rendered within the court’s jurisdiction even if arraigned erroneous ends the case
in finality and another jurisprudence that provided the judge considered the evidence even in his
appreciation of the evidence is dealing to acquittal erroneous on appeal for motion for reconsideration
by the Constitution will not be aligned. Galman vs. Sandganbayan.

And lastly, appeal by the accused. Okay. If the accused is acquitted, the prosecution cannot abate the
judgment because it would be against the rule of Double Jeopardy. But if the accused is the one, if the
acquitted accused is the one who will file an appeal. PWEDE. But there is no Double Jeopardy. Okay. If it
is the accused that is going to file an appeal, and he will appeal his judgment of acquittal, PWEDE. Sa
Court of Appeals, noh, however, the appellate Court would impose a penalty higher than that of the
original. If he was, no I mean, not acquittal, I’m sorry, appeal by the accused that is convicted pala. If the
accused is convicted for 6 years, and one day to twelve years, he appeals e, pwede. Pwede niyang I
appeal yun. Pero if the appellate court sentences him to 12 years and one day to 20 years, then
problema na niya yan. That is the penalty also of the accused. Okay. Any question on Section 21.

Lastly Section 22, "No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted . First thing first, definition of
ex – post facto law. An ex – post facto law is one which makes an action done before the passing of the
law which was innocent when done criminal. It punishes such action. Mahirap noh. Okay.

There is an act that is done. The act is done. Then there is the passing of the law which penalizes the act,
ojkay, there is an act done and this act was innocent, there was a law passed. Yes. Making this act
criminal. That is an ex – post facto law. Okay.

Second another definition,it is an act, it is a law that aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it
was committed. Nagging mas malala yung penalty for example. That is an ex – post facto law.

And third, a law which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annex to
the crime when it was committed. I think it’s easily understood.

And fourth, a law which alters illegal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimonies than the
law require by the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant. Mas
magaling. It is a law where the evidence, the evidence is lessened . it is now easier to convict. That is an
ex – post facto law.

And five, which assumes to regulate civil rights and reminisce only but in effect impose a penalty for
deprivation of right and lastly which deprives of person accused of the crime of some lawful defense
such as the protection of former acquittal or conviction of amnesty proclamation.