Merencillo v People | 521
violation of RA 3019 in addition to a felony
scra 31
Facts: Juanito Merencillo was charged of
violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019 and
Direct bribery. Petitioner demanded from
private complainant Ma. Angeles Ramasola
Cesar P20,000.00 in exchange for the
approval of the Certificate Authorizing
Registration (CAR). Due to the repeated
demand of the petitioner and delaying the
release of CAR, private complainant seek
the help of the authorities. As a result,
petitioner was caught in the entrapment
instituted by the police. After trial, the RTC
found petitioner guilty as charged.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the
Sandiganbayan which was denied affirming
the RTC decision. Hence, this petition for
review of certiorari, contending that he
was twice in jeopardy when he was
prosecuted for violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA
3019 and for direct bribery.
Issue: WON the petitioner was placed in
double jeopardy.
Holding: No. Section 3(b) of RA 3019
begins with the following statement: Sec.3
In addition to acts or omissions of public
officers already penalized by existing law,
the following acts shall constitute corrupt
practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared unlawful: XXX XXX
One may therefore be charged with
under the RPC for the same delictual act,
that is, either concurrently or subsequent
to being charged with a felony under the
RPC. There is no double jeopardy if a
person is charged simultaneously of
successively for violation of the Sec.3 of RA
3019 and the RPC. The rule against double
jeopardy prohibits twice placing a person in
jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense. The test is whether one offense is
identical with the other or is an attempt to
commit it or a frustration thereof; or
whether one offense necessarily includes
or os necessarily included in the other, as
provided in Sec.7 of Rule 117 of the Rules
of Court. An offense charged necessarily
includes that which is proved when some
of the essential elements or ingredients of
the former, as alleged in the complaint,
constitute the latter; and an offense
charged is necessarily included in an
offense proved when the essential
ingredients of the former constitute or form
a part of those constituting the latter.
A comparison of the elements of the
crime of direct bribery defined and
punished under RPC and those violation of
Sec.3 (b) of RA 3019 shows that there is
neither identity nor necessary inclusion
between the two offenses although the two
charges against the petitioner stemmed
from the same transaction, the same act
gave rise to two separate and distinct
offense.