Case Topics Issue Ruling Remarks

1. Co vs. Lim Right against The case against the accused was dismissed by the RTC No, there is no double jeopardy. One of the requisites for double
G.R. Nos. 164669- Double Jeopardy on the ground that the Secretary of Justice said so. After jeopardy is that “the accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the
70 the case was dismissed, a lone prosecutor appealed the case has been dismissed or terminated without the express consent
October 30, 2009 case to the SC. WON the appealing of a dismissed case of the accused.” In this case, it was the defendants or accused who
is equal to double jeopardy. moved for the dismissal of the case. Hence, the requisite of double
jeopardy was not met. Thus, it is not applicable to this case.
2. Garcia vs. Right against A forfeiture case and a plunder case was filed against No. Forfeiture cases and the Plunder Case have separate causes of
Sandiganbayan Double Jeopardy Garcia for amassing hundreds of millions of pesos. The action; the former is civil in nature while the latter is criminal.
G.R. NO. 170122 forfeiture cases were docked into Sandiganbayan 2 nd Double jeopardy, as a criminal law concept, refers to jeopardy of
October 12, 2009 Division and then after the Plunder case was filed in the punishment for the same offense, suggesting that double jeopardy
Sandiganbayan 4th Div. WON petitioner was placed in presupposes two separate criminal prosecutions.
double jeopardy.
3. Icasiano vs. Right against The Tanodbayan conducted a preliminary investigation NO. The dismissal by the Tanodbayan of the first complaint cannot
Sandiganbayan Double Jeopardy in connection with the complaint filed against petitioner bar the present prosecution, since double jeopardy does not apply.
G.R. No. 95642 for alleged violation of Anti-Graft and Practices Act. The A preliminary investigation is not a trial to which double jeopardy
May 28, 1992 complaint was dismissed for lack of merit on the attaches.
recommendation of the special prosecutor. Another
complaint was lodged against him for the same
violation and a corresponding information was filed
with the Sandiganbayan. WON he was placed in double
jeopardy.
4. Cayao vs. Right against A case was filed against petitioner for medical NO. Double jeopardy does not apply in administrative proceedings.
Ramolete Double Jeopardy malpractice. The Board of Medicine absolved petitioner. The revocation of a license is administrative in character and not
G.R. No. 159132 However, another case was lodged against the PRC. penal in nature.
December 18, WON he was placed in double jeopardy.
2008
5. Braza vs. Right against Braza, contends that double jeopardy would still attach No, he is not in placed in double jeopardy. There is simply no double
Sandiganbayan Double Jeopardy even if the first information charged an offense jeopardy when the subsequent information charges another and
G.R. No. 195032 different from that charged in the second information different offense, although arising from the same act or set of acts.
February 20, since both charges arose from the same transaction or Prosecution for the same act is not prohibited. What is forbidden is
2013 set of facts. WON double jeopardy has already set in the prosecution for the same offense.
basis of Braza "not guilty" plea in the first Information
and, thus, he can no longer be prosecuted under the
second Information.
6. Paredes vs. CA Right against Petitioner is a municipal treasurer of a municipality. No, he was not placed in double jeopardy. It is well settled that a
G.R. NO. 169534 Double Jeopardy Two cases of falsification of public documents were single act may offend against two or more distinct and related
July 30, 2007 filed against him. One case was for his criminal liability provisions of law, or that the same act may give rise to criminal as
and another case was for his administrative liability. The well as administrative liability. As such, they may be prosecuted
 decisions in the administrative case was in favor of simultaneously or one after another, so long as they do not place the
petitioner. But he was found guilty in the criminal case. accused in double jeopardy of being punished for the same offense.
WON he was placed in double jeopardy. The former is an administrative charge of dishonesty constituting
grave misconduct against petitioner. This sprung from his alleged
fraudulent encashment of the subject checks. On the other hand,
the latter involved seven separate criminal charges against
petitioner for the crimes of Estafa through Falsification of a
Commercial Document as defined and penalized under the Revised
Penal Code.
7. Tandoc vs. Right against Several cases were filed against the accused. The fiscal No, they were not placed in double jeopardy. Preliminary
Resultan Double Jeopardy found no probable cause on the complaints and they investigation is merely inquisitorial, and it is often the only means of
G.R. No. 59241- were dismissed. But the city court judge conducted discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a
44 another preliminary investigation which he later found crime, to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information.
July 5, 1989 probable cause. WON the accused were placed in The result of a preliminary investigation can neither constitute nor
double jeopardy. give rise to the defense of double jeopardy in any case, because such
preliminary investigation is not and does not in itself constitute a
trial or even any part thereof. The only purpose of a preliminary
investigation is to determine, before the presentation of evidence by
the prosecution and by the defense, if the latter party should wish to
present any, whether or not there are reasonable grounds for
proceeding formally and resolutely against the accused.
8. Vincoy vs. CA Right against An estafa case was filed against Vincoy in the NO. There is no double jeopardy. The dismissal of a similar
G.R. NO. 156558 Double Jeopardy Prosecutor’s Office in Pasay but was dismissed for lack complaint for estafa filed by Lizah Cimafranca before the City
June 14, 2004 of probable cause. A second case was refiled in the Prosecutors Office of Pasay City will not exculpate the petitioner.
Prosecutor’s Office in Pasig which then filed the The case cannot bar petitioner’s prosecution. It is settled that the
information in court. WON the refiling in the dismissal of a case during its preliminary investigation does not
Prosecutor’s Office in Pasig placed petitioner in double constitute double jeopardy since a preliminary investigation is not
jeopardy. part of the trial and is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive
display of the parties’ evidence but only such as may engender a
well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and
accused is probably guilty thereof. For this reason, it cannot be
considered equivalent to a judicial pronouncement of acquittal.
Hence, petitioner was properly charged before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Pasig City which is not bound by the determination
made by the Pasay City Prosecutor who may have had before him a
different or incomplete set of evidence than that subsequently
presented before the Pasig City Prosecutor.
9. Trinidad vs. Office Right against Wilfredo Trinidad is charged with two criminal cases by NO. There is no double jeopardy. For the dismissal of a case during
of the Double Jeopardy the Office of the Ombudsman. The first case is for preliminary investigation does not constitute double jeopardy,
 Ombudsman knowingly pre-qualifying PIATCO despite its failure to preliminary investigation not being part of the trial.
G.R. NO. 166038 meet the financial capability standards set by law. The
December 4, second is for granting PIATCO undue benefit and
2007 advantage through the execution Third Supplement to
the Amended and Restated Concession Agreement
covering the NAIA IPT III Project. During the pendency
of the petition, the Sandiganbayan found no probable
cause to proceed with the trial in, and thus dismissed
the second charge and denied the prosecution‘s motion
for reconsideration by. The petition insofar as the
second case is concern is effectively mooted. Trinidad
argues that res judicata should apply since the Office of
the Ombudsman twice found no sufficient basis to
indict him in similar cases earlier filed against him. Thus,
it should be interpreted in the concept of double
jeopardy in criminal law. He posits that repeated
investigations are oppressive and particularly points out
that no new evidence was presented at the re-
investigation. WON dismissing the civil case does not
bar the criminal prosecution.
10. Cudia vs. CA Right against Cudia was arrested in Mabalacat, Pampanga allegedly No, there was no double jeopardy. It is plainly apparent that the City
G.R. No. 110315 Double Jeopardy for possessing an unlicensed revolver. The City Prosecutor of Angeles City had no authority to file the first
January 16, 1998 Prosecutor of Angeles City filed an information against information, the offense having been committed in the Municipality
him for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. of Mabalacat, which is beyond his jurisdiction. It is thus the
During the ensuing pre-trial, the court called the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga, not the City Prosecutor, who
attention of the parties to the fact that, contrary to the should prepare informations for offenses committed within
information, petitioner had committed the offense in Pampanga but outside of Angeles City. An information, when
Mabalacat, and not in Angeles City. Thereafter, the case required to be filed by a public prosecuting officer, cannot be filed
was assigned to Branch 56 of the Angeles City RTC. by another. It must be exhibited or presented by the prosecuting
However, the provincial prosecutor of Pampanga also attorney or someone authorized by law. If not, the court does not
filed an information charging petitioner with the same acquire jurisdiction.
crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
The case was likewise raffled to Branch 56 of the
Angeles City RTC. This prompted the prosecutor in the
first criminal case to file a Motion to Dismiss/Withdraw
the Information, it appearing that the apprehension of
the accused was made in Mabalacat, Pampanga, within
the jurisdiction of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Pampanga. The trial court granted the motion. WON
there was double jeopardy.
11. Zapatos vs. Right against Cases were filed in the RTC and Sandiganbayan. No. While petitioner had already pleaded not guilty before the RTC,
People Double Jeopardy Petitioner pleaded not guilty in the RTC. However, the jeopardy did not attach as it did not acquire jurisdiction. There can
G.R. Nos. 147814- prosecution withdrew the case before the RTC stating be no double jeopardy where the accused entered a plea in court
15 that the court had no jurisdiction. WON the filing of a that had no jurisdiction.
September 16, criminal charge in the Sandiganbayan placed petitioner
2003 in double jeopardy.
12. Binay vs. Right against Cases were filed in the RTC against Binay over violations No, it did not place Binay in double jeopardy. The first jeopardy
Sandiganbayan Double Jeopardy of RA 3019 and Art. 220 of the RPC. Binay pleaded guilty never attached in the first place, the RTC not being a court of
G.R. Nos. 120681- not guilty before the RTC. However, Informations were competent jurisdiction. There can be no double jeopardy where the
83 also filed in the Sandiganbayan by the Ombudsman on accused entered a plea in a court that had no jurisdiction. The
October 1, 1999 the ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the remedy of petitioners, therefore, was not to move for the quashal of
cases. WON the subsequent filing with the the information pending in the Sandiganbayan on the ground of
Sandiganbayan placed petitioner in double jeopardy. double jeopardy. Their remedy was to move for the quashal of the
information pending in the RTC on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
13. Miranda vs. Right against The trial court dismissed the case before the accused No, there was no double jeopardy. The reinstatement of a criminal
Tuliao Double Jeopardy were arraigned. The CA however, ordered the case dismissed before arraignment does not constitute double
G.R. No. 158763 reinstatement of the case. WON there was double jeopardy. Double jeopardy cannot be invoked where the accused
March 31, 2006 jeopardy. has not been arraigned and it was upon his express motion that the
case was dismissed.
14. People vs. Magat Right against A complaint of rape was filed against Magat for raping No, there was no double jeopardy because the plea bargaining was
G.R. No. 130026 Double Jeopardy his daughter. He the pleaded guilty and asked for a void. It must be emphasized that accused-appellant did not plead to
May 31, 2000 lesser penalty. It was agreed upon by the prosecutor a lesser offense but pleaded guilty to the rape charges and only
and the family. After 3 months, the same case was filed bargained for a lesser penalty. In short, as aptly observed by the
again because the penalty “was too light”. WON Magat Solicitor General, he did not plea bargain but made conditions on
was placed in double jeopardy. the penalty to be imposed. This is erroneous because by pleading
guilty to the offense charged, accused-appellant should be
sentenced to the penalty to which he pleaded. In effect, the
judgment rendered by the trial court which was based on a void plea
bargaining is also void ab initio and cannot be considered to have
attained finality for the simple reason that a void judgment has no
legality from its inception. Thus, since the judgment of conviction
rendered against accused-appellant is void, double jeopardy will not
lie.
15. People vs. Right against Balisacan was charged with homicide. He pleaded No, he was not placed in double jeopardy. The accused had first
Balisacan Double Jeopardy guilty. Due to the mitigating circumstances he was entered a plea of guilty. Subsequently, however, he testified, in the
G.R. No. L-26376 acquitted by the court. The prosecution appealed the course of being allowed to prove mitigating circumstances, that he
August 31, 1966 case. WON the appeal placed the accused in double acted in complete self-defense. Said testimony, therefore — as the
jeopardy. court a quo recognized in its decision — had the effect of vacating
his plea of guilty and the court a quo should have required him to

16. Tangan vs. People Right against Tangan was charged of homicide and illegal possession
G.R. No. 103613 Double Jeopardy of firearms. He was acquitted for the possession of
February 23, firearms because of the incomplete self-defense
2001 mitigation. The SolGen filed a petition for certiorari
asking that there should be no mitigation circumstance.
WON the petition for certiorari placed Tangan in double
jeopardy.
17. People vs. CA Right against
Double Jeopardy
18. Gulman vs. Right against An investigating committee was created to determine
Sandiganbayan Double Jeopardy the facts on the case involving the assassination of
G.R. No. 72670 Ninoy Aquino. It appears that majority and minority
September 12, reports showed that they are unconvinced on the
1986 participation of Galman as the assassin of late Sen.
Aquino and branded him instead as the fall guy as
opposed to the military reports. Majority reports
recommended the 26 military respondents as indictable
for the premeditated killing of Aquino and Galman
which the Sandiganbayan did not give due
consideration. The office of the Tanod Bayan was
originally preparing a resolution charging the 26 military
accused as principal to the crime against Aquino but
was recalled upon the intervention of President Marcos
who insist on the innocence of the accused. Marcos
however recommended the filing of murder charge and
to implement the acquittal as planned so that double
jeopardy may be invoked later on. The petitioners filed
an action for miscarriage of justice against the
Sandiganbayan and gross violation of constitutional
rights of the petitioners for failure to exert genuine
efforts in allowing the prosecution to present vital
plead a new on the charge, or at least direct that a new plea of not
guilty be entered for him. This was not done. It follows that in effect
there having been no standing plea at the time the court a quo
rendered its judgment of acquittal, there can be no double jeopardy
with respect to the appeal herein.
Yes. It was held that the prosecution cannot avail of the remedies of
special civil action on certiorari, petition for review on certiorari, or
appeal in criminal cases. Previous to that, the SC categorically ruled
that the writ of certiorari cannot be used by the State in a criminal
case to correct a lower court's factual findings or evaluation of the
evidence. The SolGen’s petition for certiorari under Rule 65, praying
that no mitigating circumstance be appreciated in favor of accused-
appellant and that the penalty imposed on him be correspondingly
increased, constitutes a violation of Tangan's right against double
jeopardy and should be dismissed.
Yes. Hence, there was no first jeopardy. The Supreme Court held
that the prosecution was deprived of due process and fair
opportunity to prosecute and prove their case which grossly violates
the due process clause. There could be no double jeopardy since
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. The lower court that
rendered the judgment of acquittal was not competent as it was
ousted of its jurisdiction when it violated the right of the prosecution
to due process. In effect the first jeopardy was never terminated,
and the remand of the criminal case for further hearing and/or trial
before the lower courts amounts merely to a continuation of the
first jeopardy, and does not expose the accused to a second
jeopardy. The court further contends that the previous trial was a
mock trial where the authoritarian President ordered the
Sandiganbayan and Tanod Bayan to rig and closely monitor the trial
which was undertaken with due pressure to the judiciary. The
court’s decision of acquittal is one void of jurisdiction owing to its
failure in observing due process during the trial therefore the
judgment was also deemed void and double jeopardy cannot be
invoked. More so the trial was one vitiated with lack of due process
 documentary evidence and prayed for nullifying the on the account of collusion between the lower court and
bias proceedings before the Sandiganbayan and Sandiganbayan for the rendition of a pre-determined verdict of the
ordering a re-trial before an impartial tribunal. WON accused.
there was due process in the acquittal of the accused
from the charges against them.
19. Pacoy vs. Judge Right against The accused was charged of homicide. Before the pre- No, he was not placed in double jeopardy. The change of the offense
Cajigal Double Jeopardy trial, the judge ordered the prosecutor to change the charged from Homicide to Murder is merely a formal amendment
G.R. No. 157472 crime charge of homicide to murder. During the pre- and not a substantial amendment or a substitution. While the
September 28, trial, petitioner argued that he was placed in double amended Information was for Murder, a reading of the Information
2007 jeopardy because the first complaint charged was shows that the only change made was in the caption of the case; and
terminated without his express consent. WON he was in the opening paragraph or preamble of the Information, with the
placed in double jeopardy. crossing out of word "Homicide" and its replacement by the word
"Murder." There was no change in the recital of facts constituting
the offense charged or in the determination of the jurisdiction of the
court. The averments in the amended Information for Murder are
exactly the same as those already alleged in the original Information
for Homicide, as there was not at all any change in the act imputed
to petitioner.
20. People vs. Salico Right against The case was dismissed because of the wrong venue. No, the accused is not placed in double jeopardy. The fact that the
G.R. No. L-1567 Double Jeopardy The prosecution appealed the case. WON the appeal lower court has to proceed to the trial of the case against the
October 13, 1949 placed the accused in double jeopardy. defendant on the merits and may after the trial either acquit or
convict him, would not place the defendant in double jeopardy,
because the further proceeding by the court below is not a new trial
of a case against the defendant, but a mere continuation of the
former trial in order that the lower court may decide the case on the
merits or the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
21. Caniza vs. People Right against The first complaint filed by the fiscal was quashed by No. The case was dismissed with express consent from the accused.
G.R. No. L-53776 Double Jeopardy the court. The fiscal refiled a complaint with the court. A dismissal under such circumstances will not bar another
March 18, 1988 The court then proceeded with the case. WON the prosecution for the same offense; the defendant, in having the case
accused was placed in double jeopardy on the refiling of against him dismissed, thereby waives his constitutional right against
the case. double jeopardy for the reason that he effectively prevents the trial
court from proceeding to trial on the merits and rendering a
judgment of conviction against him.
22. People vs. Right against Several cases were filed in the Sandiganbayan. Yes, he was placed in double jeopardy. As correctly pointed out in
Espinosa Double Jeopardy However, the prosecution withdrew these cases. After a the challenged Resolution, the dismissal of the estafa and the
G.R. Nos. 153714- month or so, the same Informations were refiled again corruption cases was made upon petitioner’s ex parte Motion for
20 but in another Division of the Sandiganbayan. WON the the withdrawal of the Informations. Petitioner does not dispute the
August 15, 2003 refiling placed Espinosa in double jeopardy. fact that private respondent was not notified of this Motion. Neither
was a hearing held thereon.
23. People vs. Right against Can an order of dismissal of a criminal case upon
Declaro Double Jeopardy motion of the accused after arraignment for the failure
G.R. No. L-64362 of the prosecution to appear on the first day of hearing
February 9, 1989 be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense?
24. People vs. Tan Right against Two separate information were filed against
G.R. No. 167526 Double Jeopardy respondent Tan for violation of the Revised Securities
July 26, 2010 Act. During the trial, petitioner made its formal offer of
evidence. RTC admitted the pieces of evidence, but
denied admission of all other exhibits. Tan filed Motion
for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence. Petitioner filed
its Opposition to which Tan filed a Reply. In the end,
RTC issued an order granting Tan’s Demurrer to
Evidence. Petitioner filed a petition before the CA
assailing the order of RTC which granted Tan’s motion.
CA denied, ruling that the dismissal of a criminal action
by the grant of a Demurrer to Evidence is one on the
merits and operates as an acquittal, for which reason,
the prosecution cannot appeal therefrom as it would
place the accused in double jeopardy. WON the accused
was placed in double jeopardy.
25. Esmena vs. Pagoy Right against Petitioners Esmeña and Alba were charged with grave
Double Jeopardy coercion in the Court of Cebu City for allegedly forcing
Fr. Thomas Tibudan to withdraw a sum of money worth
P5000 from the bank to be given to them because the
priest lost in a game of chance. During arraignment,
petitioners pleaded “Not Guilty”. No trial came in after
the arraignment due to the priest’s 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
No, there was yet no double jeopardy. Double jeopardy will apply
even if the dismissal is made with the express consent of the
accused, or upon his own motion, only if it is predicated on either of
two grounds, i.e., insufficiency of the evidence or denial of the right
to a speedy trial. In both cases, the dismissal will have the effect of
an acquittal. Since the dismissal in this case does not fall under
either of these two instances and it was made with the express
consent of the accused, it would not thereby be a bar to another
prosecution for the same offense.
No. The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such as the one at
bar, is “filed after the prosecution had rested its case,” and when the
same is granted, it calls “for an appreciation of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant conviction
beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the case on the
merits, tantamount to an acquittal of the accused.” Such dismissal of
a criminal case by the grant of demurrer to evidence may not be
appealed, for to do so would be to place the accused in double
jeopardy. The verdict being one of acquittal, the case ends there.
The only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the
trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, which is not present in this case. RTC did not
violate petitioner’s right to due process as the petitioner was given
more than ample opportunity to present its case which led to grant
of Tan’s demurrer. RTC never prevented petitioner from presenting
its case. In fact, one of the main reasons for the RTCs decision to
grant the demurrer was the absence of evidence to prove the
classes of shares that the Best World Resources Corporation stocks
were divided into, whether there are preferred shares as well as
common shares, or even which type of shares respondent had
acquired.
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 nonappearance 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
 that the complainant was sick. The accused invoked has been arraigned and has pleaded to the complaint or
their right to speedy trial. Respondent judge dismissed information. In the case at bar, all three conditions were present, as
the case because the trial was already dragging the the case filed was grave coercion, filed in a court of competent
accused and that the priest’s telegram did not have a jurisdiction as to where the coercion took place and last the accused
medical certificate attached to it in order for the court were arraigned and has pleaded to the complaint or the
to recognize the complainant’s reason to be valid in information.
order to reschedule again another hearing. After 27
days the fiscal filed a motion to revive the 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.
WON 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.
26. Andres vs. Cacdac Right against
Double Jeopardy
27. People vs. Right against
Sandiganbayan Double Jeopardy
28. People vs. Right against
Nazareno Double Jeopardy
29. Villareal vs. Aliga Right against
Double Jeopardy
30. Ivler vs. Modesto- Right against
San Pedro Double Jeopardy
31. Legarda vs.
Valdez
32. US vs. Pico
33. People vs.
Estoista
34. US vs. Pacheco
35. People vs. Munoz
36. People vs.
Echagaray
37. People vs.
Mercado
38. People vs. Bon