Double Jeopardy. Sec. 21. Art. Ill: "No

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
been made in charging the proper offense,

DOUBLE JEOPARDY the first charge shall be dismissed to pave
the way for the filing of the proper offense.
Double Jeopardy. Sec. 21. Art. Ill: “No
The dismissal of the first case will not give
person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
rise to double jeopardy inasmuch as, in
punishment for the same offense. If an act
this case, it is clear that the MTC did not
is punished by a law and an ordinance,
have jurisdiction to try the offense of rape
conviction or acquittal under either shall
[Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA
constitute a bar to another prosecution for
667]. T
the same act.’]
hus, in Cunanan v. Arceo, 242 SCRA 88,
where the criminal case was dismissed by
REQUISITES: the RTC so that the appropriate
information may be filed before the
a) Valid complaint or information. Sandiganbayan which had jurisdiction,
Double jeopardy does not attach in the defense of double jeopardy cannot be
preliminary investigation [Icasiano v. availed of by the petitioner.
Sandiganbayan, 209 SCRA 377],
c) To which the defendant had pleaded.
b) Filed before a competent court. See Thus, in Flores v. Joven, G.R. No. 129874,
People v. Grospe, 157 SCRA 154; Cruz v. December 27, 2002, because private
Enrile, 160 SCRA 702. Where the six respondent Navarro had not yet been
criminal informations were erroneously arraigned, double jeopardy may not be
filed with the City Court of Lucena (which validly invoked.
did not have jurisdiction, as the proper
court was the CFI of Quezon), even if the The grant of a motion to quash, filed
accused had already been arraigned, no before the accused makes his plea, can be
double jeopardy will attach in the appealed by the prosecution because the
subsequent prosecution before the CFI of accused has not yet been placed in
Quezon [People v. Puno, 208 SCRA 550]. jeopardy [Sec. 9, Rule 117, Rules of
Court], In People v. Balisacan, 17 SCRA
The same principle was applied in Cudia 1119,-the Court ruled that when the
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110815, accused, after pleading guilty, testified to
January 16, 1998, where the first prove mitigating circumstances, the
information was filed in the RTC of testimony had the effect of vacating his
Angeles City but jurisdiction was with the plea of guilty.
RTC of Pampanga inasmuch as the offense
was committed in Mabalacat, Pampanga. d) Defendant was previously acquitted
Accordingly, when it becomes manifest or convicted, or the case dismissed or
before the judgment that a mistake has otherwise terminated without his
MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"Aralin mo din yung current events, tapos iapply mo yung poli, ok?!"
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA
Page | 1
MENDIOLA, MANILA
express consent. There is no double jeopardy where the

accused was sentenced on plea-
In People v. Judge Pineda, G.R. No. bargaining approved by the court but
44205, February 11, 1993, the Supreme without the consent of the fiscal [People v.
Court ruled that a prior conviction, or Judge Villarama, 210 SCRA 246]. Neither
acquittal, or termination of the case will double jeopardy attach where the
without the express consent of the criminal case was mistakenly dismissed
accused is still required before the first by the court during a hearing that had
jeopardy can be pleaded to abate a second already been earlier cancelled and
prosecution. removed from the court calendar for that
day [Gorion v. Regional Trial Court of
In People v. Miraflores, 115 SCRA 586, Cebu, 213 SCRA 138]. The re-taking of
the Supreme Court said: “The more testimony, made necessary because the
untenable aspect of the position of the transcript of stenographic notes was
appellant is that when he invoked the incomplete and a new judge had taken
defense of double jeopardy, what could over the case, does not give rise to double
have been the first jeopardy had not yet jeopardy [Guerrero v. Court of Appeals,
been completed or even began x x x the supra.]. Withdrawal of the appeal lies in
mere filing of two informations or the sound discretion of the Court. Thus,
complaints charging the same offense does where the motion of the petitioner to
not yet afford the accused in those cases withdraw his appeal from the decision of
the occasion to complain that he is being the MTC (which imposed only a fine as
placed in jeopardy twice for the same penalty) was denied, his payment of the
offense, for the simple reason that the fine did not make the decision of the MTC
primary basis of the'defense of double final and executory, Accordingly,
jeopardy is that the accused has already petitioner was not placed in double
been convicted or acquitted in the first case, jeopardy by the decision of the RTC
or the same has been terminated without [Teodoro v. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA
his consent.” 603].
Thus, the implication in People v. City The promulgation of only one part of the
Court of Manila, Branch XI, 121 SCRA decision, i.e., the modified civil indemnity
637, that prior conviction or acquittal in liability, is not a bar to the promulgation
the first case, as long as the accused had of the other part, the imposition of the
entered his plea therein, is not required in criminal accountability, and does not
order that the accused may move to constitute a violation of the proscription
quash a second prosecution for the same against double jeopardy [Cuizon v. Court
offense on the ground of double jeopardy, of Appeals, G.R. No. 128540, April 15,
is now modified by Pineda. 1998].

Page | 2
MENDIOLA, MANILA
The fundamental philosophy highlighting Philippine Savings Bank vs. Bermoy

the finality of an acquittal by the trial [ G.R. No. 151912, September 26, 2005]
court cuts deep into the “humanity of the
laws and a jealous watchfulness over the The right against double jeopardy can be
rights of the citizen when brought in an invoked if
unequal contest with the State”. The State, (a) the accused is charged with the same
with all its resources and power should offense in two separate pending cases, or
not be allowed to make repeated attempts
to convict an individual for an alleged (b) the accused is prosecuted anew for the
offense, thereby subjecting him to same offense after he had been convicted
embarrassment, expense and ordeal, and or acquitted of such offense, or
compelling him to live in a continuing
state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as (c) the prosecution appeals from a
enhacing the possibility that even though judgment in the same case.
innocent, he may be found guilty
The last is based on Section 2, Rule 122 of
[Philippine Savings Bank v. Spouses
the Rules of Court which provides that
Bermoy, G.R. No. 151912, September 26,
"any party may appeal from a final
2005].
judgment or order, except if the accused
would be placed thereby in double
jeopardy."
GABBY RECIT:
In terms of substantive law, the Court will
Q: What are the two (2) types of double not pass upon the propriety of the order
jeopardy? granting the Demurrer to Evidence on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence and
ANS – (1) same offense; (2) same act the consequent acquittal of the accused,
as it will place the latter in double
jeopardy. Generally, the dismissal of a
criminal case resulting in acquittal made
Q: What is the common law principle in with the express consent of the accused
double jeopardy? or upon his own motion will not place the
accused in double jeopardy. However, this
ANS – Non bis in idem – not twice for the
same. rule admits of two exceptions, namely:
insufficiency of evidence and denial of the
right to a speedy trial xxx In the case
before us, the resolution of the Demurrer
to Evidence was based on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence xxx Hence, it
clearly falls under one of the admitted

Page | 3
MENDIOLA, MANILA
exceptions to the rule. Double jeopardy of the innocent against wrongful

therefore, applies to this case and this conviction." The interest in the finality-of-
Court is constitutionally barred from acquittal rule, confined exclusively to
reviewing the order acquitting the verdicts of not guilty, is easy to
accused. (Emphasis supplied) understand: it is a need for "repose," a
desire to know the exact extent of one’s
The strict rule against appellate review of liability. With this right of repose, the
judgments of acquittal is not without any criminal justice system has built in a
basis. As the Court explained in People v. protection to insure that the innocent,
Velasco — The fundamental philosophy even those whose innocence rests upon a
highlighting the finality of an acquittal by jury’s leniency, will not be found guilty in
the trial court cuts deep into "the a subsequent proceeding.
humanity of the laws and in a jealous
watchfulness over the rights of the citizen, Related to his right of repose is the
when brought in unequal contest with the defendant’s interest in his right to have
State x x x x" his trial completed by a particular
tribunal. xxx [S]ociety’s awareness of the
Thus, Green v. United States expressed heavy personal strain which the criminal
the concern that "the underlying idea,one trial represents for the individual
that is deeply ingrained in at least the defendant is manifested in the willingness
Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is to limit Government to a single criminal
that the State with all its resources and proceeding to vindicate its very vital
power should not be allowed to make interest in enforcement of criminal laws.
repeated attempts to convict an individual The ultimate goal is prevention of
for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting government oppression; the goal finds its
him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal voice in the finality of the initial
and compelling him to live in a continuing proceeding. As observed in Lockhart v.
state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as Nelson, "the fundamental tenet animating
enhancing the possibility that even though the Double Jeopardy Clause is that the
innocent, he may be found guilty." State should not be able to oppress
individuals through the abuse of the
It is axiomatic that on the basis of
humanity, fairness and justice, an criminal process." Because the innocence
of the accused has been confirmed by a
acquitted defendant is entitled to the right
final judgment, the Constitution
of repose as a direct consequence of the
finality of his acquittal. The philosophy conclusively presumes that a second trial
would be unfair.
underlying this rule establishing the
absolute nature of acquittals is "part of Petitioner, together with the Solicitor
the paramount importance criminal General, contends that the Court can
justice system attaches to the protection inquire into the merits of the acquittal of

Page | 4
MENDIOLA, MANILA
respondent spouses because the dismissal respondent spouses as the accused. The
of Criminal Case No. 96-154193 was void. trial court dismissed the case.
They contend that the trial court acted
with grave abuse of discretion amounting Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it with the Court of Appeals. The CA denied
disregarded evidence allegedly proving petition holding that the trial court was
respondent spouses’ identity. The correct in granting the demurrer to
contention has no merit. To be sure, the evidence for insufficiency of evidence on
rule barring appeals from judgments of account of lack of proper identification of
acquittal admits of an exception. Such, the accused. But even assuming that the
however, is narrowly drawn and is trial court erred, the acquittal of the
limited to the case where the trial court accused can no longer be reviewed either
"acted with grave abuse of discretion on appeal or on petition for certiorari for
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction it would violate the right of the accused
due to a violation of due process i.e. the against double jeopardy.
prosecution was denied the opportunity to
present its case xxx or that the trial was a Thus this petition. The Solicitor General
sham xxx." contends that the trial court’s dismissal of
Criminal Case No. 96-154193 was tainted
with grave abuse of discretion thus,
double jeopardy does not apply in this
PSB v. BERMOY, G.R. No. 151912, case.
September 26, 2005
ISSUE: W/N Double Jeopardy is
FACTS: Based on a complaint filed by applicable in the case at bar?
petitioner Philippine Savings Bank
(“petitioner”), respondents Pedrito and HELD: YES. For double jeopardy to apply,
Gloria Bermoy (“respondent spouses”) Section 7 requires the following elements
were charged with estafa thru falsification in the first criminal case:
of a public document in the Regional Trial
Court. (a) The complaint or information or other
formal charge was sufficient in form and
Upon arraignment, respondent spouses substance to sustain a conviction;
pleaded “not guilty” to the charge and the
case was set for trial. (b) The court had jurisdiction;
After the prosecution rested its case, the (c) The accused had been arraigned and
defense filed, with leave of court, a had pleaded; and
demurrer to evidence on the ground that
the prosecution failed to identify

Page | 5
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(d) He was convicted or acquitted or the the accused would be placed thereby in
case was dismissed without his express double jeopardy.”
consent.
Here, petitioner seeks a review of the 21
On the last element, the rule is that a April 1998 Order dismissing Criminal
dismissal with the express consent or Case No. 96-154193 for insufficiency of
upon motion of the accused does not evidence. It is in effect appealing from a
result in double jeopardy. However, this judgment of acquittal. By mandate of the
rule is subject to two exceptions, namely, Constitution and Section 7, the courts are
if the dismissal is based on insufficiency barred from entertaining such appeal as it
of evidence or on the denial of the right to seeks an inquiry into the merits of the
speedy trial. A dismissal upon demurrer dismissal.
to evidence falls under the first
exception. Since such dismissal is based
on the merits, it amounts to an acquittal.
As the Court of Appeals correctly held, People vs. Obsania [G.R. No. L-24447,
the elements required in Section 7 were June 29, 1968]
all present in Criminal Case No. 96-
154193. Thus, the Information for estafa REQUISITES OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY. An
through falsification of a public document appeal by the prosecution in a criminal
against respondent spouses was sufficient case is not available if the defendant
in form and substance to sustain a would thereby be placed in double
conviction. The trial court had jeopardy. Correlatively, Section 9, Rule
jurisdiction over the case and the persons 117 of the Revised Rules of Court
of respondent spouses. Respondent provides:
spouses were arraigned during which
they entered “not guilty” pleas. Finally, "When a defendant shall have been
Criminal Case No. 96-154193 was convicted or acquitted, or the case against
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. him dismissed or otherwise terminated
Consequently, the right not to be placed without the express consent of the
twice in jeopardy of punishment for the defendant, by a court of competent
same offense became vested on jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or
respondent spouses. information or other formal charge
sufficient in form and substance to sustain
Section 2, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court a conviction, and after the defendant had
provides that “[a]ny party may appeal pleaded to the charge, the conviction or
from a final judgment or order, except if acquittal of the defendant or the dismissal
of the case shall be a bar to another
prosecution for the offense charged, or for
Page | 6
MENDIOLA, MANILA
any attempt to commit the same or Reasoning a contrario, had the dismissal
frustration thereof, or for any offense not amounted to acquittal, then the
which necessarily includes or is necessarily doctrine of waiver would have applied
included in the offense charged in the and prevailed.
former complaint or information."
In Cloribel, the case dragged for three
In order that the protection against years and eleven months, that is, from
double jeopardy may inure in favor of an September 27, 1958 when the
accused, the following requisites must information was filed to August 15, 1962
have obtained in the original prosecution: when it was called for trial, after
numerous postponements, mostly at the
(a) a valid complaint or information; instance of the prosecution. On the latter
date, the prosecution failed to appear for
(b) a competent court;
trial, and upon motion of the defendants,
(c) the defendant had pleaded to the the case was dismissed. This Court held
charge; and "that the dismissal here complained of
was not truly a 'dismissal' but an acquittal.
(d) the defendant was acquitted, or For it was entered upon the defendants'
convicted, or the case against him was insistence on their constitutional right to
dismissed or otherwise terminated without speedy trial and by reason of the
his express consent. prosecution's failure to appear on the
date of trial." (italics supplied.)
Considering the factual setting in the case

DISMISSAL WITH THE EXPRESS
at bar, it is clear that there is no
CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED. From the
parallelism between Cloribel and the case
abovequoted statement, it is clear that
cited therein, on the one hand, and the
what in Salico was repudiated in Labatete
instant case, on the other. Here the
was the premise that the dismissal
controverted dismissal was predicated on
therein was not on the merits and not the
the erroneous contention of the accused
conclusion that a dismissal, other than on
that the complaint was defective and such
the merits, sought by the accused, is
infirmity affected the jurisdiction of the
deemed to be with his express consent
court a quo, and not on the right of the
and therefore constitutes a waiver of his
accused to a speedy trial and the failure of
right to plead double jeopardy in the
the Government to prosecute. The
event of an appeal by the prosecution or a
appealed order of dismissal in this case
second indictment for the same offense.
now under consideration did not
This Court, in Labatete, merely pointed
terminate the action on the merits,
out that the controverted dismissal in
whereas in Cloribel and in the other
Salico "was in fact an acquittal."
related cases the dismissal amounted to

Page | 7
MENDIOLA, MANILA
an acquittal because the failure to Court of Balungao, Pangasinan. He

prosecute presupposed that the pleaded not guilty. His counsel moved for
Government did not have a case against the dismissal of the charge for failure to
the accused, who, in the first place, is allege vivid designs in the info. Said
presumed innocent. motion was granted. From this order of
dismissal the prosecution appealed.
The application of the sister doctrines of
waiver and estoppel require two sine qua ISSUE: Whether or Not the present appeal
non conditions: first, the dismissal must places the accused in Double Jeopardy.
be sought or induced by the defendant
personally or through his counsel; and HELD: In order that the accused may
second, such dismissal must not be on the invoke double jeopardy, the following
merits and must not necessarily amount requisites must have obtained in the
to an acquittal. Indubitably, the case at original prosecution, a) valid complaint,
bar falls squarely within the periphery of b) competent court, c) the defendant had
the said doctrines which have been pleaded to the charge, d) defendant was
preserved unimpaired in the corpus of acquitted or convicted or the case against
our jurisprudence. him was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.
GABBY RECIT: In the case at bar, the converted dismissal

was ordered by the Trial Judge upon the
Q: Upon arraignment, accused pleaded defendant's motion to dismiss. The
not guilty and immediately moved to “doctrine of double jeopardy” as
quash the complaint on the ground enunciated in P.vs. Salico applies to wit
that it charged no offense. Motion was when the case is dismissed with the
granted and correctly. An amended express consent of the defendant, the
complaint was filed. Is there double dismissal will not be a bar to another
jeopardy? prosecution for the same offense because
his action in having the case is dismissed
ANS- No, because a defective complaint
constitutes a waiver of his constitutional
did not place the accused in first jeopardy
right/privilege for the reason that he
thereby prevents the Court from
proceeding to the trial on the merits and
PEOPLE VS. OBSANIA [23 SCRA 1249; rendering a judgment of conviction
G.R. L-24447; 29 JUN 1968] against him.
FACTS: The accused was charged with In essence, where a criminal case is
Robbery with Rape before the Municipal dismissed provisionally not only with the

Page | 8
MENDIOLA, MANILA
express consent of the accused but even prosecution for the same offense because
upon the urging of his counsel there can his action in having the case is dismissed
be no double jeopardy under Sect. 9 Rule constitutes a waiver of his constitutional
113, if the indictment against him is right/privilege for the reason that he
revived by the fiscal. thereby prevents the Court from
rendering a judgment
of conviction against him.
PEOPLE VS OBSANIA [23 SCRA 1249;
In essence, where a criminal case is
G.R. L-24447; 29 June 1968]
dismissed provisionally not only with the
FACTS: The accused was charged with express consent of the accused but even
Robbery with Rape before the upon the urging of his counsel there can
Municipal Court of Balungao, Pangasinan. be no double jeopardy under Sect. 9 Rule
He pleaded not guilty. His counsel moved 113, if the indictment against him is
for the dismissal of the charge for failure revived by the fiscal.
to allege vivid designs in the info. Said
motion was granted. From this order of
dismissal the prosecution appealed. NACHURA:
ISSUE: Whether or Not the present appeal DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION. The
places the accused in Double Jeopardy. dismissal of the action may either be a
permanent dismissal or a provisional
HELD: In order that the accused
dismissal. A permanent dismissal of a
may invoke double jeopardy, the
criminal case may refer to the termination
following requisites must have obtained
of the case on the merits, resulting in
in the original prosecution, a) valid
complaint, b) competent court, c) either the conviction or acquittal of the
accused; to the dismissal of the case
the defendant had pleaded to the charge,
because of the prosecution’s failure to
d) defendant was acquitted or convicted
or the case against him was dismissed or prosecute; or to the dismissal thereof on
the ground of unreasonable delay in the
otherwise terminated without his
express consent. proceedings in violation of the right of the
accused to speedy trial. In contrast, a
In the case at bar, the converted dismissal
provisional dismissal of a criminal case is
was ordered by the Trial Judge upon the
defendant's motion to dismiss. The dismissal without prejudice to
reinstatement thereof before the order of
“doctrine of double jeopardy” as
dismissal becomes final, or to the
enunciated in P.vs. Salico applies to wit
subsequent filing of a new information
when the case is dismissed with the
within the periods allowed under the
express consent of the defendant, the
dismissal will not be a bar to another Revised Penal Code or the Revised Rules

Page | 9
MENDIOLA, MANILA
of Court [Condrada v. People, G.R. No. 1.When the ground for the motion to
141646, February 28, 2003]. dismiss is insufficiency of evidence
[People v. City Court of Silay, 74 SCRA
Thus, the dismissal of an action on 248]. Thus, the grant of a demurrer to
procedural grounds, not being an evidence is equivalent to an acquittal, and
acquittal, does not give rise to double any further prosecution of the accused
jeopardy [Paulin v. Judge Gimenez, 217 would violate the constitutional
SCRA 386]. But where the dismissal was proscription against double jeopardy
made at the instance of the Provincial [Sanvicente v People, G.R. No. 132081,
Fiscal, because on reinvestigation, it was November 28, 2002; People v.
shown that the complainants were the Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 140633,
real aggressors and the accused acted February 4, 2002; People v. Donesa, 49
only in self-defense, the dismissal was SCRA 281]. Where the denial of the
made without the consent of the accused, demurrer to evidence is appealed to the
because express consent has been defined Court of Appeals and the latter orders the
as that which is directly given, either viva dismissal of the criminal case, the
voce or in writing, a positive, direct, dismissal is a decision on the merits of the
unequivocal consent requiring no case which amounts to an acquittal of the
inference or implication to supply its accused. Thus, the court is bound by the
meaning [People v. Judge Vergara, 221 dictum that whatever error may have
SCRA 560]. been committed in effecting the dismissal
of the case, this cannot now be corrected
Likewise, the reinstatement of the because of the timely plea of double
information, after the court dismissed the jeopardy [Comelec v. Court of Appeals,
case at the instance of the prosecution 229 SCRA 501].
without asking for the consent of the
accused, gives rise to double jeopardy In People v. Verra, G.R. No. 134732, May
[Tupaz v. Judge Ulep, G.R. No. 127777, 29, 2002, it was held that while the
October 1, 1999], Consent of the accused accused joined the prosecution in praying
to the dismissal cannot be implied or for the dismissal of the case, double
presumed; it must be expressed as to jeopardy will still attach since the basis
have no doubt as to the accused’s for the dismissal was the insufficiency of
conformity [Caes v. Intermediate evidence of the prosecution. In view of
Appellate Court, 179 SCRA 54]. When the private complainant’s desistance and her
dismissal is made at the instance of the testimony that other witnesses have
accused, there is no double jeopardy turned hostile and are also no longer
[People v. Quizada, 160 SCRA 516; Sta. interested in prosecuting this case, the
Rita v. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 484; prosecution clearly lacks the evidence to
de la Rosa v. Court of Appeals, supra.; support the charge.
People v. Leviste, 255 SCRA 238], except:

Page | 10
MENDIOLA, MANILA
2. When the proceedings have been a judgment of acquittal that was based on
unreasonably prolonged as to violate the merits of the case. Certiorari will issue
the right of the accused to speedy trial only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not
[Esmena v. Pogoy, 102 SCRA 861]. But see errors of procedure or mistakes in the
People v. Gines, supra.,where the motion findings or conclusions of the lower court
to dismiss made at the instance of the [People v. Court of Appeals and Maquiling,
accused, although invoking the right to G.R. No. 128986, June 21, 1999; People v.
speedy trial, was ruled not to have given Court of Appeals and Tangan, G.R. No.
rise to double jeopardy — because the 102612, February 13, 2001], An appeal by
postponement sought did not constitute the prosecution from a judgment of
unreasonable delay. See also People v. acquittal, or for the purpose of increasing
Tampal, supra.; People v. Levisfe, the penalty imposed upon the convict
supra.; Guerrero v. Court of Appeals, would place the latter in double jeopardy.
supra.; Almario v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Double jeopardy provides three related
No. 127772, March 22, 2001. protections: (1) against a second
prosecution for the same offense after
Revival of the criminal cases provisionally acquittal; (2) against a second
dismissed. Sec. 8, Rule 117, Revised Rules prosecution for the same offense after
on Criminal Procedure, provides a time- conviction; and (3) against multiple
bar of two (2) years within which the punishments for the same offense.
State may revive criminal cases [People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 137953-
provisionally dismissed with the express 58, March 11, 2002], .
consent of the accused and with a priori
notice to the offended party, if the offense Thus, in People v. PerlitaJ. Tria-Tirona,
charged is penalized by more than six (6) G.R. No. 130106, July 15, 2006, the
years imprisonment; and one (1) year if Supreme Court reiterated the principle
the penalty imposable does not exceed six that after trial on the merits, an acquittal
(6) years imprisonment or a fine in is immediately final and cannot be
whatever amount. This rule took effect on appealed, because double jeopardy would
December 1, 2000, and must be applied have set in. The only exception is where
prospectively in order to prevent injustice there is a finding of mistrial resulting in a
to the State and avoid absurd, denial of due process.
unreasonable and wrongful results in the
administration of justice [People v. But where the prosecution is denied due
Panfilo Lacson, G.R. No. 149453, April process, such denial results in loss or lack
01, 2003]. of jurisdiction, and thus, appeal may be
allowed [People v. Navarro, 63 SCRA
Appeal by the prosecution. The rule on 264]. This was reiterated in People v.
double jeopardy prohibits the State from Alberto, G.R. No. 132374, August 22,
appealing or filing a petition for review of 2002, where the Supreme Court said that

Page | 11
MENDIOLA, MANILA
a purely capricious dismissal of an Appeal from the order of dismissal by the

information deprives the State of fair lower court is, likewise, not foreclosed by
opportunity to prosecute and convict; it the rule on double jeopardy where the
denies the prosecution its day in court; it order of dismissal was issued before
is a dismissal without due process and arraignment [Martinez v. Court of
therefore, null and void. Appeals, 237 SCRA 575].
In People v. Judge Tac-an, G.R. No. Similarly, as held in Summerville General

148000, February 27, 2003, it was held Merchandising v. Hon. Antonio Eugenio,
that the court acted without jurisdiction Jr., G.R. No. 16374, August 7, 2007,
when it dismissed the case merely double jeopardy will not set in when the
because none of the witnesses notified by order granting the withdrawal of the
the trial court appeared during the pre- information was issued with grave abuse
trial. of discretion, because then the accused
was not acquitted nor was there a valid
Accordingly, no double jeopardy will and legal dismissal or termination of the
attach where the State is deprived of a fair case.
opportunity to prosecute and prove its
case [Gorion v. RTC of Cebu, 213 SCRA
138], or where the dismissal of an
information or complaint is purely
capricious or devoid of reason [People v. Paulin vs. Gimenez [G.R. No. 103323,
Gomez, 20 SCRA 293], or where there is January 21, 1993]
lack of proper notice or opportunity to be
heard [Portugal v. Reantaso, 167 SCRA DOUBLE JEOPARDY. For double
712]. jeopardy to be validly invoked by
petitioners, the following requisites must
Likewise, the prosecution can appeal if have been obtained in the original
the accused has waived or is estopped prosecution:
from invoking his right against double
jeopardy [People v. Obsania, 23 SCRA a) a valid complaint or information;
1249], or when the dismissal or acquittal
is made with grave abuse of discretion b) a competent court;
[People v. Pablo, 98 SCRA 289], or where c) the defendant had pleaded to the
there is a finding of a mistrial, as in charge; and
Galman v. Sandiganbayan, supra..See also
People v. Mogol, 131 SCRA 296; Heirs of d) the defendant was acquitted, or
Tito Rillorta v. Judge Firme, 157 SCRA convicted, or the case against him was
518. dismissed or otherwise terminated without
his express consent (People v. Obsania,

Page | 12
MENDIOLA, MANILA
23 SCRA 1249 [1968]; Caes v. IAC , 179 introduced in People v. Salico (84 Phil.
SCRA 54 [1989]). 722 [19491), where Justice Felicisimo
Feria stated:
Jurisprudence on double jeopardy as well
as the exceptions thereto which finds ". . . when the case is dismissed, with the
application to the case at bar has been express consent of the defendant, the
laid down by this Court as follows: dismissal will not be a bar to another
prosecution for the same offense; because,
". . . However, an appeal by the his action in having the case dismissed
prosecution from the order of dismissal constitutes a waiver of his constitutional
(of the criminal case) by the trial court right or privilege, for the reason that he
shall not constitute double jeopardy if thereby prevents the court from
(1) the dismissal is made upon motion, or
with the express consent of the defendant; rendering a judgment of conviction
against him." (See also People v.
(2) the dismissal is not an acquittal or Marapao (85 Phil. 832 [1950]);
based upon consideration of the evidence Gandicela v. Lutero (88 Phil. 299
or of the merits of the case; and [1951]); People v. Desalisa (125 Phil. 27
[1966]); and, more recently, People v.
(3) the question to be passed upon by the Aquino (199 SCRA 610 [1991]).
appellate court is purely legal so that
should the dismissal be found incorrect, the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACQUITTAL
case would have to be remanded to the AND DISMISSAL. In People v. Salico
court of origin for further proceedings, to (supra), distinctions between acquittal
determine the guilt or innocence of the and dismissal were made, to wit:
defendant." (People v. Villalon, 192 SCRA
521 [1990], at p. 529.) ". . . Acquittal is always based on the
merits, that is, the defendant is acquitted
For double jeopardy to attach, the because the evidence does not show that
dismissal of the case must be without the defendant's guilt is beyond reasonable
express consent of the accused (People v. doubt; but dismissal does not decide the
Gines, 197 SCRA 481 [1991]). Where the case on the merits or that the defendant is
dismissal was ordered upon motion or not guilty. Dismissals terminate the
with the express assent of the accused, he proceedings, either because the court is
is deemed to have waived his protection not a court of competent jurisdiction, or
against double jeopardy. In the case at bar, the evidence does not show that the
the dismissal was granted upon motion of offense was committed within the
petitioners. Double jeopardy thus did not territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the
attach. This doctrine of waiver of double complaint or information is not valid or
jeopardy was examined and formally

Page | 13
MENDIOLA, MANILA
sufficient in form and substance, etc. . . ." owner of the vehicle. Later that day, while
(at pp. 732-733.) engaged in his duties, petitioners
allegedly pointed their guns at him. Thus,
he immediately ordered his subordinate
to call the police and block road to
CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN DISMISSAL IS
DEEMED FINAL. Jurisprudence prevent the petitioners’ escape. Upon the
arrival of the police, petitioners put their
recognizes exceptional instances when
guns down and were immediately
the dismissal may be held to be final,
apprehended.
disposing of the case once and for all even
if the dismissal was made on motion of
the accused himself, to wit: A complaint “grave threats” was filed
against the petitioners (Criminal Case No.
1. Where the dismissal is based on a 5204). It was dismissed by the court
demurrer to evidence filed by the accused acting on the motion of the petitioners.
after the prosecution has rested, which Mabuyo filed a MOR thus the dismissal
has the effect of a judgment on the merits was reversed. Thereafter, petitioners filed
and operates as an acquittal. for “certiorari, prohibition, damages, with
relief of preliminary injunction and the
2. Where the dismissal is made, also on issuance of a TRO” (CEB-9207). Petition is
motion of the accused, because of the dismissed for lack of merit and for being a
denial of his right to a speedy trial which prohibited pleading and ordered to
is in effect a failure to prosecute. (Caes v. proceed with the trial of the case. Hence,
IAC, 179 SCRA 54 [1989] at pp. 60-61.) this instant petition.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or Not the dismissal of 5204
was a judgment of acquittal.
PAULIN VS. GIMENEZ [217 SCRA 386; (2) Whether or Not the judge ignored
G.R. NO. 103323; 21 JAN 1993] petitioner’s right against double jeopardy
by dismissing CEB-9207.
FACTS: Respondent and Brgy Capt. HELD: For double jeopardy to attach, the
Mabuyo, while in a jeep, were smothered dismissal of the case must be without the
with dust when they were overtaken by express consent of the accused. Where the
the vehicle owned by Petitioner Spouses. dismissal was ordered upon motion or
Irked by such, Mabuyo followed the with the express assent of the accused, he
vehicle until the latter entered the gate of has deemed to have waived his protection
an establishment. He inquired the nearby against double jeopardy. In the case at bar,
security guard for the identity of the the dismissal was granted upon motion of

Page | 14
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the petitioners. Double jeopardy thus did also against said petitioner is criminal in
not attach. nature.
Furthermore, such dismissal is not When the Supreme Court acts on

considered as an acquittal. The latter is complaints against judges or any of the
always based on merit that shows that the personnel under its supervision and
defendant is beyond reasonable doubt not control, it acts as personnel administrator,
guilty. While the former, in the case at bar, imposing discipline and not as a court
terminated the proceedings because no judging justiciable controversies.
finding was made as to the guilt or Administrative procedure need not
innocence of the petitioners. strictly adhere to technical rules.
Substantial evidence is sufficient to
The lower court did not violate the rule sustain conviction. Criminal proceedings
when it set aside the order of dismissal before the Sandiganbayan, on the other
for the reception of further evidence by hand, while they may involve the same
the prosecution because it merely acts subject of the administrative case,
corrected its error when it prematurely require proof of guilt beyond reasonable
terminated and dismissed the case doubt.
without giving the prosecution the right To avail of the protection against double
to complete the presentation of its jeopardy, it is fundamental that the
evidence. The rule on summary
following requisites must have obtained
procedure was correctly applied. in the original prosecution:
(a) a valid complaint or information;

Icasiano vs. Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. (c) a valid arraignment;
95642, May 28, 1992]
(d) the defendant had pleaded to the
DOUBLE JEOPARDY DOES NOT ATTACH charge; and
WHEN THE FIRST ACTION IS
ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE. It is, (e) the defendant was acquitted, or
therefore, correct for the Sandiganbayan convicted, or the case against him was
to hold that double jeopardy does not dismissed or otherwise terminated without
apply in the present controversy because his express consent.
the Supreme Court case (against the
All these elements do not apply vis-a-vis
herein petitioner) was administrative in
the administrative case, which should
character while the Sandiganbayan case
take case of petitioner's contention that
said administrative case against him

Page | 15
MENDIOLA, MANILA
before the Supreme Court, which was, as bar the present prosecution, since double
aforestated, dismissed, entitled him to jeopardy does not apply. As held in Cirilo
raise the defense of double jeopardy in Cinco, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan and the
the criminal case in the Sandiganbayan. People of the Philippines, a preliminary
investigation (assuming one had been
The charge against petitioner Judge conducted in TBP-87-00924) is not a trial
Icasiano before the Sandiganbayan is for to which double jeopardy attaches.
grave abuse of authority, manifest
partiality and incompetence in having In Gaspar vs. Sandiganbayan, this Court
issued two (2) orders of detention against also held:
complaining witness Magbago. Ordinarily,
complainant's available remedy was to "Moreover, there is no rule or law
appeal said orders of detention in requiring the Tanodbayan to conduct
accordance with the Rules. It is only when another preliminary investigation of a case
an appellate court reverses the lower under review by it (him). On the contrary,
court issuing the questioned orders can under Presidential Decree No. 911, in
abuse, partiality or incompetence be relation to Rule 12, Administrative Order
imputed to the judge. Here no appeal No. VII, the Tanodbayan may, upon review,
from the questioned orders of the issuing reverse the finding of the investigator, and
judge (petitioner Icasiano) was taken: thereafter `where he finds a prima facie
instead, administrative and criminal cases case, to cause the filing of an information
were filed against the judge for issuing in court against the respondent, based on
the orders. the same sworn statements or evidence
submitted, without the necessity of
It is precisely for this reason, among other, conducting another preliminary
that the administrative case against investigation.'"
petitioner was dismissed by the Supreme
Court for lack of merit; and yet, it cannot
be assumed at this point that petitioner is
not criminally liable under R.A 3019, par.
3(e) for issuing the questioned orders of ICASIANO VS SANDIGANBAYAN [GR
detention. In fact, the Ombudsman has 95642, 28 May 1992]
found a prima facie case which led to the
filing of the information. FACTS: Acting Municipal Trial Court
Judge of Naic, Cavite, Aurelio G. Icasiano,
Jr. issed 2 orders of detention dated 18
and 27 November 1986 against Romana
DOUBLE JEOPARDY DOES NOT ATTACH Magbago for contempt of court because of
IN PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. In her continued refusal to comply with a
any case, the dismissal by the fifth alias writ of execution. Magbago filed
Tanodbayan of the first complaint cannot
Page | 16
MENDIOLA, MANILA
an administrative complaint dated 17 the transmitted records did not contain

February 1987 with the Supreme Court the earlier resolution of dismissal in TBP-
against Judge Icasiano. After evaluating 87-00924. Special Prosecutor Nicanor
the allegations of the complaint, Cruz, Jr. who was assigned to investigate
Icasiano's comment thereon and the the case (TBP-87-01546) appeared
Court Administrator's recommendation, completely unaware of the earlier case,
the Supreme Court dismissed the TBP-87-00924. The corresponding
administrative complaint for lack of merit information against Icasiano was
in an en banc resolution dated 2 February thereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan
1988. (Criminal Case 14563). After said
information was filed on 21 March 1990,
Meanwhile, on 17 March 1987, Magbago Icasiano (as accused) filed a motion for
also filed with the Office of the reinvestigation. Icasiano's motion for
Ombudsman the same letter- complaint reinvestigation was denied in the 29 June
earlier filed with the Supreme Court; this 1990 resolution, of the Sandiganbayan.
time, she claimed violation by Judge Icasiano then moved to quash the
Icasiano, Jr. of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt information on the grounds, among
Practices Act (RA 3019, sec. 3 par. [e]) in others, that the accused shall be placed in
TBP-87-00924. After considering Judge double jeopardy in so far as the resolution
Icasiano's answer, in a resolution dated of the Hon. Supreme Court in
April 1988 Special Prosecutor Evelyn Administrative Case RTJ 87-81. The
Almogela-Baliton recommended dismissal Sandiganbayan denied the motion to
of the complaint for lack of merit. The quash. A motion for reconsideration was
recommendation was approved by then likewise denied. Icasiano filed the petition
Special Prosecutor/Tanodbayan Raul M. for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Gonzales. It appears from the records of
the Tanodbayan, which were forwarded ISSUE: Whether the resolution of the
to the Supreme Court, upon order of the administrative proceeding in the Supreme
Court in connection with this case, that Court bars the subsequent filing of a
the resolution dismissing the complaint criminal case against the accused in the
was released on 14 April 1988. The office Sandiganbayan.
of the Tanodbayan received another
complaint from the same Romana HELD: After a closer look at the records of
Magbago (TBP-87-01546). the case, the Court is of the view that the
distinction between administrative and
The exact date of filing of the second criminal proceedings must be upheld, and
complaint is not stated but the records of that a prosecution in one is not a bar to
the case were allegedly among those the other. It is, therefore, correct for the
transmitted to the then newly created Sandiganbayan to hold that double
office of the Ombudsman; unfortunately, jeopardy does no apply in the present

Page | 17
MENDIOLA, MANILA
controversy because the Supreme Court that said administrative case against him
case (against Judge Icasiano) was before the Supreme Court, which was
administrative in character while the dismissed, entitled him to raise the
Sandiganbayan case also against Judge defense of double jeopardy in the criminal
Icasiano is criminal in nature. When the case in the Sandiganbayan. The charge
Supreme Court acts on complaints against Judge Icasiano before the
against judges or any of the personnel Sandiganbayan is for grave abuse of
under its supervision and control, it acts authority, manifest partiality and
as personnel administrator, imposing incompetence in having issued 2 orders of
discipline and not as a court judging detention against complaining witness
justiciable controversies. Administrative Magbago. Ordinarily, complainant's
procedure need not strictly adhere to available remedy was to appeal said
technical rules. Substantial evidence is orders of detention in accordance with
sufficient to sustain conviction. Criminal the Rules. It is only when an appellate
proceedings before the Sandiganbayan, court reverses the lower court issuing the
on the other hand, while they may involve questioned orders can abuse, partiality or
the same acts subject of the incompetence be imputed to the judge.
administrative case, require proof of guilt Here no appeal from the questioned
beyond reasonable doubt. To avail of the orders of the issuing judge (Icasiano) was
protection against double jeopardy, it is taken: instead, administrative and
fundamental that the following requisites criminal cases were filed against the judge
must have obtained in the original for issuing the orders. It is precisely for
prosecution: this reason, among other, that the
administrative case against Judge Icasiano
(a) a valid complaint or information; was dismissed by the Supreme Court for
lack of merit; and yet, it cannot be
assumed at this point that Judge Icasiano
(c) a valid arraignment; is not criminally liable under RA 3019,
par. 3(e) for issuing the questioned
(d) the defendant had pleaded to the orders of detention. In fact, the
charge; and Ombudsman has found a prima facie case
which led to the filing of the information.
(e) the defendant was acquitted, or
In any case, the dismissal by the
convicted, or the case against him was
Tanodbayan of the first complaint cannot
dismissed or otherwise terminated without
bar the present prosecution, since double
his express consent.
jeopardy does not apply. As held in Cirilo
All these elements do not apply vis- a-vis Cinco, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan and the
the administrative case, which should People of the Philippines, a preliminary
take care of Judge Icasiano's contention investigation (assuming one had been

Page | 18
MENDIOLA, MANILA
conducted in TBP-87-00924) is not a trial same offense would arm the government
to which double jeopardy attaches. with a potent instrument of oppression.
The provision therefore guarantees that
the State shall not be permitted to make
repeated attempts to convict an
individual for an alleged offense, thereby
Lejano vs. People of the Philippines subjecting him to embarrassment,
[G.R. No. 176389, January 18, 2011] expense, and ordeal and compelling him
to live in a continuing state of anxiety and
But, as a rule, a judgment of acquittal insecurity, as well as enhancing the
cannot be reconsidered because it places possibility that even though innocent he
the accused under double jeopardy. The may be found guilty. Society’s awareness
Constitution provides in Section 21, of the heavy personal strain which a
Article III, that: criminal trial represents for the individual
defendant is manifested in the willingness
Section 21. No person shall be twice
to limit the government to a single
put in jeopardy of punishment for the
criminal proceeding to vindicate its very
same offense. x x x
vital interest in the enforcement of
To reconsider a judgment of acquittal criminal laws.
places the accused twice in jeopardy of
Of course, on occasions, a motion for
being punished for the crime of which he
reconsideration after an acquittal is
has already been absolved. There is
possible. But the grounds are exceptional
reason for this provision of the
and narrow as when the court that
Constitution. In criminal cases, the full
absolved the accused gravely abused its
power of the State is ranged against the
discretion, resulting in loss of jurisdiction,
accused. If there is no limit to attempts to
or when a mistrial has occurred. In any of
prosecute the accused for the same
such cases, the State may assail the
offense after he has been acquitted, the
decision by special civil action of
infinite power and capacity of the State
certiorari under Rule 65.
for a sustained and repeated litigation
would eventually overwhelm the accused
in terms of resources, stamina, and the
will to fight. ANTONIO LEJANO VS PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
As the Court said in People of the
Philippines v. Sandiganbayan: At the heart FACTS: On 30 June 1991, Estellita
of this policy is the concern that
Vizconde and her daughters Carmela and
permitting the sovereign freely to subject Jennifer were brutally slain at their home
the citizen to a second judgment for the
in Paranaque City. Four years later in

Page | 19
MENDIOLA, MANILA
1995, the NBI announced that it had exit from both the Philippines and the US,
solved the crime. It presented star- Flight’s Passenger Manifest employment
witness Jessica Alfaro, one of its informers, documents in the US during his stay there
who claimed that she had witnessed the and US-INS computer generated
crime. She pointed to Hubert Webb, certification authenticated by the
Antonio Lejano, Artemio Ventura, Michael Philippine DFA. Aside from these
Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Peter documentary alibis, he also gave a
Estrada, Miguel Rodriguez and Joy Filart thorough recount of his activities in the
as the culprits. She also tagged police US
officer, Gerardo Biong, as an accessory
after the fact. Alfaro had been working as ISSUE: Whether or not Webb’s
an asset to the NBI by leading the agency documented alibi of his U.S. travel should
to criminals. Some of the said criminals be given more credence by the Court than
had been so high-profile, that Alfaro had the positive identification by Alfaro.
become the “darling” of the NBI because
RULING:For a positive identification to be
of her contribution to its success. The acceptable, it must meet at least two
trial court and the Court of Appeals found criteria:
that Alfaro’s direct and spontaneous
narration of events unshaken by 1. The positive identification of the
gruesome cross-examination should be offender must come from a
given a great weight in the decision of the credible witness; and
case. 2. The witness’ story of what she
In Alfaro’s story, she stated that after she personally saw must be believable,
and the accused got high of shabu, she not inherently contrived.
was asked to see Carmela at their
residence. After Webb was informed that The Supreme Court found that Alfaro and
Carmela had a male companion with her, her testimony failed to meet the above
Webb became piqued and thereafter criteria. She did not show up at the NBI
consumed more drugs and plotted the as a spontaneous witness bothered by her
gang rape on Carmela. Webb, on the conscience. She had been hanging around
other hand, denied all the accusations the agency for sometime as a stool pigeon,
against him with the alibi that during the one paid for mixing up with criminals and
whole time that the crime had taken place, squealing on them. And although her
he was staying in the United States. He testimony included details, Alfaro had
had apparently left for the US on 09 prior access to the details that the
March 1991 and only returned on 27 investigators knew of the case. She took
October 1992. As documentary evidence, advantage of her familiarity with these
he presented photocopies of his passport details to include in her testimony the
with four stamps recording his entry and clearly incompatible acts of Webb hurling

Page | 20
MENDIOLA, MANILA
a stone at the front door glass frames, for the police arrested a group of suspects,
example, just so she can accommodate the some of whom gave detailed confessions.
crime scene feature. But the trial court smelled a frame-up and
eventually ordered them discharged. Thus,
To establish alibi, the accused must prove the identities of the real perpetrators
by positive, clear and satisfactory remained a mystery especially to the
evidence that: public whose interests were aroused by
the gripping details of what everybody
1. He was present at another place at referred to as the Vizconde massacre.
the time of the perpetration of the
crime, and Four years later in 1995, the National
2. That it was physically impossible Bureau of Investigation or NBI announced
for him to be at the scene of the that it had solved the crime. It presented
crime. star-witness Jessica M. Alfaro, one of its
informers, who claimed that she
The Supreme Court gave very high witnessed the crime. She pointed to
credence to the compounded accused Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio
documentary alibi presented by "Tony Boy" Lejano, Artemio "Dong"
Webb. This alibi altogether impeaches Ventura, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio
Alfaro’s testimony not only with respect "Pyke" Fernandez, Peter Estrada, Miguel
to him, but also with respect to the other "Ging" Rodriguez, and Joey Filart as the
accused. For, if the Court accepts the culprits. She also tagged accused police
proposition that Webb was in the US officer, Gerardo Biong, as an accessory
when the crime took place, Alfaro’s after the fact. Relying primarily on
testimony will not hold Alfaro's testimony, on August 10, 1995
altogether. Webb’s participation is the the public prosecutors filed an
anchor of Alfaro’s story. information for rape with homicide
against Webb, et al.
The Regional Trial Court of Parañaque

ANTONIO LEJANO vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES/PEOPLE OF THE City, presided over by Judge Amelita G.
PHILIPPINES vs. HUBERT JEFFREY P. Tolentino, tried only seven of the accused
WEBB ET. AL, G.R. No. 176864. Dec. 14, since Artemio Ventura and Joey Filart
2010 remained at large.
FACTS: On June 30, 1991 Estrellita
Vizconde and her daughters Carmela, The prosecution presented Alfaro as its
nineteen years old, and xxx, seven, were main witness with the others
brutally slain at their home in Parañaque corroborating her testimony. These
City. Following an intense investigation, included the medico-legal officer who

Page | 21
MENDIOLA, MANILA
autopsied the bodies of the victims, the penalty imposed on Biong to six years
security guards of Pitong Daan minimum and twelve years maximum and
Subdivision, the former laundrywoman of increasing the award of damages to Lauro
the Webb’s household, police officer Vizconde.
Biong’s former girlfriend, and Lauro G.
Vizconde, Estrellita’s husband. The appellate court did not agree that the
accused were tried by publicity or that
Webb’s alibi appeared the strongest since the trial judge was biased. It found
he claimed that he was then across the sufficient evidence of conspiracy that
ocean in the United States of America. He rendered Rodriguez, Gatchalian,
presented the testimonies of witnesses as Fernandez, and Estrada equally guilty
well as documentary and object evidence with those who had a part in raping and
to prove this. In addition, the defense killing Carmela and in executing her
presented witnesses to show Alfaro's bad mother and sister.
reputation for truth and the incredible
nature of her testimony. On April 20, 2010, as a result of its initial
deliberation in this case, the Court issued
But impressed by Alfaro’s detailed a Resolution granting the request of Webb
narration of the crime and the events to submit for DNA analysis the semen
surrounding it, the trial court found a specimen taken from Carmela’s cadaver,
credible witness in her. It noted her which specimen was then believed still
categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, under the safekeeping of the NBI.
and frank testimony, undamaged by
grueling cross-examinations. The Court granted the request pursuant
to section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence
On January 4, 2000, after four years of to give the accused and the prosecution
arduous hearings, the trial court rendered access to scientific evidence that they
judgment, finding all the accused guilty as might want to avail themselves of, leading
charged and imposing on Webb, Lejano, to a correct decision in the case.
Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, and
Rodriguez the penalty of reclusion Unfortunately, on April 27, 2010 the NBI
perpetua and on Biong, an indeterminate informed the Court that it no longer has
prison term of eleven years, four months, custody of the specimen, the same having
and one day to twelve years. The trial been turned over to the trial court. The
court also awarded damages to Lauro trial record shows, however, that the
Vizconde. specimen was not among the object
evidence that the prosecution offered in
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed evidence in the case.
the trial court’s decision, modifying the

Page | 22
MENDIOLA, MANILA
This outcome prompted accused Webb to produce on order of the Court either by
file an urgent motion to acquit on the negligence or willful suppression the
ground that the government’s failure to semen specimen taken from Carmela.
preserve such vital evidence has resulted
in the denial of his right to due process. When Webb raised the DNA issue, the
rule governing DNA evidence did not yet
ISSUES: exist, the country did not yet have the
1. Whether or not Alfaro’s testimony as technology for conducting the test, and no
eyewitness, describing the crime and Philippine precedent had as yet
identifying Webb, Lejano, Gatchalian, recognized its admissibility as evidence.
Fernandez, Estrada, Rodriguez, and two
others as the persons who committed it, is Consequently, the idea of keeping the
entitled to belief; and specimen secure even after the trial court
rejected the motion for DNA testing did
2. Whether or not Webb presented not come up. Indeed, neither Webb nor
sufficient evidence to prove his alibi and his co-accused brought up the matter of
rebut Alfaro’s testimony that he led the preserving the specimen in the meantime.
others in committing the crime.
Parenthetically, after the trial court
3. Whether or not the Court should acquit denied Webb’s application for DNA
him outright, given the government’s testing, he allowed the proceeding to
failure to produce the semen specimen move on when he had on at least two
that the NBI found on Carmela’s cadaver, occasions gone up to the Court of Appeals
thus depriving him of evidence that would or the Supreme Court to challenge alleged
prove his innocence; and arbitrary actions taken against him and
the other accused.
4. Whether or not Webb, acting in
conspiracy with Lejano, Gatchalian, They raised the DNA issue before the
Fernandez, Estrada, Rodriguez, Ventura, Court of Appeals but merely as an error
and Filart, raped and killed Carmela and committed by the trial court in rendering
put to death her mother and sister. its decision in the case. None of the
accused filed a motion with the appeals
court to have the DNA test done pending
HELD: The Right to Acquittal Due to Loss adjudication of their appeal. This, even
of DNA Evidence when the Supreme Court had in the
Webb claims, citing Brady v. Maryland, meantime passed the rules allowing such
that he is entitled to outright acquittal on test. Considering the accused’s lack of
the ground of violation of his right to due interest in having such test done, the State
process given the State’s failure to cannot be deemed put on reasonable

Page | 23
MENDIOLA, MANILA
notice that it would be required to checks; (c) details of US sojourn; (d) the
produce the semen specimen at some second immigration check; and (e) alibi
future time. versus positive identification; and (f) a
documented alibi.
Suspicious Details
To establish alibi, the accused must prove
Alfaro had been hanging around at the by positive, clear, and satisfactory
NBI since November or December 1994 evidence that (a) he was present at
as an "asset." She supplied her handlers another place at the time of the
with information against drug pushers perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it
and other criminal elements. Some of this was physically impossible for him to be at
information led to the capture of the scene of the crime.
notorious drug pushers like Christopher
Cruz Santos and Orlando Bacquir. Alfaro’s The trial court and the Court of Appeals
tip led to the arrest of the leader of the expressed marked cynicism over the
"Martilyo gang" that killed a police officer. accuracy of travel documents like the
Because of her talent, the task force gave passport as well as the domestic and
her "very special treatment" and she foreign records of departures and arrivals
became its "darling," allowed the privilege from airports. They claim that it would
of spending nights in one of the rooms at not have been impossible for Webb to
the NBI offices. secretly return to the Philippines after he
supposedly left it on March 9, 1991,
When Alfaro seemed unproductive for commit the crime, go back to the U.S., and
sometime, however, they teased her openly return to the Philippines again on
about it and she was piqued. One day, she October 26, 1992. Travel between the U.S.
unexpectedly told Sacaguing that she and the Philippines, said the lower courts
knew someone who had the real story took only about twelve to fourteen hours.
behind the Vizconde massacre. Sacaguing
showed interest. Alfaro promised to bring
that someone to the NBI to tell his story. Effect of Webb’s alibi to others
When this did not happen and Sacaguing Webb’s documented alibi altogether
continued to press her, she told him that impeaches Alfaro's testimony, not only
she might as well assume the role of her with respect to him, but also with respect
informant. to Lejano, Estrada, Fernandez, Gatchalian,
Rodriguez, and Biong. For, if the Court
Webb’s U.S. Alibi accepts the proposition that Webb was in
Among the accused, Webb presented the the U.S. when the crime took place,
strongest alibi through (a) the travel Alfaro’s testimony will not hold together.
preparations; (b) the two immigration Webb’s participation is the anchor of

Page | 24
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Alfaro’s story. Without it, the evidence People vs. Balisacan [G.R. No. L-26376,
against the others must necessarily fall. August 31, 1966]
Conclusion DOUBLE JEOPARDY REQUIRES A VALID

In our criminal justice system, what is PLEA. This Court now turns to Section 2,
important is, not whether the court Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, which
entertains doubts about the innocence of provides that: "The People of the
the accused since an open mind is willing Philippines cannot appeal if the defendant
to explore all possibilities, but whether it would be placed thereby in double
entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt jeopardy." The present state of
as to his guilt. For, it would be a serious jurisprudence in this regard is that the
mistake to send an innocent man to jail above provision applies even if the
where such kind of doubt hangs on to accused fails to file a brief and raise the
one’s inner being, like a piece of meat question of double jeopardy (People vs.
lodged immovable between teeth. Ferrer, L-9072, October 23, 1956;
People vs. Bao, 106 Phil. 243; People vs.
Will the Court send the accused to spend de Golez, 108 Phil. 855)
the rest of their lives in prison on the The next issue, therefore, is whether this
testimony of an NBI asset who proposed appeal placed the accused in double
to her handlers that she take the role of jeopardy. It is settled that the existence of
the witness to the Vizconde massacre that
a plea is an essential requisite to double
she could not produce? jeopardy (People vs. Ylagan, 58 Phil. 851;
People vs. Quimsing, L-19860, December
The Supreme Court REVERSES and SETS 23, 1964). In the present case, it is true,
ASIDE the Decision dated December 15, the accused had first entered a plea of
2005 and Resolution dated January 26, guilty. Subsequently, however, he testified,
2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. in the course of being allowed to prove
CR-H.C. 00336 and ACQUITS accused- mitigating circumstances, that he acted in
appellants Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, complete self-defense. Said testimony,
Antonio Lejano, Michael A. Gatchalian, therefore as the court a quo recognized in
Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, its decision — had the effect of vacating
Peter Estrada and Gerardo Biong of the his plea of guilty and the court a quo
crimes of which they were charged for
should have required him to plead anew
failure of the prosecution to prove their on the charge, or at least direct that a new
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are plea of not guilty be entered for him. This
ordered immediately RELEASED from was not done. It follows that in effect
detention unless they are confined for there having been no standing plea at the
another lawful cause. time the court a quo rendered its
judgment of acquittal, there can be no

Page | 25
MENDIOLA, MANILA
double jeopardy with respect to the GABBY NOTES: In the case of people vs
appeal herein. balisacan, the plea of guilty is vacated,
therefore, no double jeopardy.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY WILL NOT ATTACH
IF THE PROSECUTION WAS DENIED ITS HYPO: The accused seeks dismissal of
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. Furthermore, the case before the MTC on the ground
as afore-stated, the court a quo decided that RTC is the proper court.
the case upon the merits without giving Prosecution files the case in the RTC, is
the prosecution any opportunity to there DJ?
present its evidence or even to rebut the
testimony of the defendant. In doing so, it ANS – No DJ, doctrine of estoppel.
clearly acted without due process of law.
And for lack of this fundamental pre-
requisite its action is perforce null and
void. The acquittal, therefore, being a
nullity for want of due process, is no PEOPLE VS. BALISACAN [17 SCRA 1119;
acquittal at all, and thus can not G.R. NO. L-26376; 31 AUG 1966]
constitute a proper basis for a claim of
FACTS: Aurelio Balisacan was charged
former jeopardy (People vs. Cabero, 61
with homicide in the CFI of Ilocos Norte.
Phil. 121; 21 Am. Jur. 2d., 235; McCleary
Upon being arraigned, he entered into a
vs. Hudspeth, 124 Fed. 2d., 445)
plea of guilty. In doing so, he was assisted
It should be noted that in rendering the y counsel. At his counsel de officio, he was
judgment of acquittal, the trial judge allowed to present evidence and
below already gave credence to the consequently testified that he stabbed the
testimony of the accused. In fairness to deceased in self-defense. In addition, he
the prosecution, without in any way stated that he surrendered himself
doubting the integrity of said trial judge, voluntarily to the police authorities. On
We deem it proper to remand this case to the basis of the testimony of the accused,
the court a quo for further proceedings he was acquitted. Thus, the prosecution
under another judge of the same court, in appealed.
one of the two other branches of the
Court of ISSUE: Whether or Not the appeal placed
the accused in double jeopardy.
HELD: The Supreme Court held that it is

First Instance of Ilocos Norte sitting at settled that the existence of plea is an
Laoag. essential requisite to double jeopardy.
The accused had first entered a plea of
guilty but however testified that he acted

Page | 26
MENDIOLA, MANILA
in complete self-defense. Said testimony (1) a valid information sufficient in form

had the effect of vacating his plea of guilty and substance to sustain a conviction of
and the court a quo should have required the crime charged,
him to plead a new charge, or at least
direct that a new plea of not guilty be (2) a court of competent jurisdiction, and
entered for him. This was not done. (3) an unconditional dismissal of the
Therefore, there has been no standing of complaint after the prosecution had rested
plea during the judgment of acquittal, so its case, amounting to the acquittal of the
there can be no double jeopardy with
accused.
respect to the appeal herein.
The dismissal being one on the merits, the
doctrine of waiver of the accused to a plea
of double jeopardy cannot be invoked.
People vs. City Court of Silay [G.R. No.

L-43790, December 9, 1976]
DISMISSAL ON THE GROUND OF

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE WILL SET IN PEOPLE VS. COURT OF SILAY [74 SCRA
MOTION DOUBLE JEOPARDY EVEN IF 248; G.R. NO. L-43790; 9 DEC 1976]
THE SAME HAS BEEN ACTIVELY
SOPUGHT BY THE ACCUSED. It is true FACTS: That sometime on January 4,1974,
that the criminal case of falsification was accused Pacifico Sensio, Romeo Millan
dismissed on motion of the accused; and Wilfredo Jochico who were then
however, this was a motion filed after the scalers at the Hawaiian-Philippine
prosecution had rested its case, calling for Company, weighed cane cars
an appreciation of the evidence adduced No.1743,1686 and 1022 loaded with
and its sufficiency to warrant conviction sugar canes which were placed in tarjetas
beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a (weight report cards), Apparently, it was
dismissal of the case on the merits, proven and shown that there was padding
tantamount to an acquittal of the accused. of the weight of the sugar canes and that
the information on the tarjetas were to be
In the case of the herein respondents, false making it appear to be heavier than
however, the dismissal of the charge its actual weight. The three accused then
against them was one on the merits of the were charged with “Falsification by
case which is to be distinguished from private individuals and use of falsified
other dismissals at the instance of the document”. After the prosecution had
accused. All the elements of double presented, the respondent moved to
jeopardy are here present, to wit: dismiss the charge against them on the
ground that the evidences presented were

Page | 27
MENDIOLA, MANILA
not sufficient to establish their guilt reasonable ground which the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt. Acting on the had not been able to do which would be
motion, respondent court issued its order tantamount to acquittal therefore will bar
dismissing the case on the ground that the the prosecution of another case. As it was
acts committed by the accused do not stated on the requirements of a valid
constituted the crime of falsification as defense of double jeopardy it says: That
strictly enumerated in the revised penal there should be a valid complaint, second
code defining the crime of falsification would be that such complaint be filed
which was charged earlier and that their before a competent court and to which
case be dismissed. People asserts that the the accused has pleaded and that
plea of double jeopardy is not tenable defendant was previously acquitted,
even if the case at bar was dismissed convicted or dismissed or otherwise
because according to them, it was done terminated without express consent of
with the consent of the accused therefore the accused in which were all present in
waiving there defense of double jeopardy. the case at bar. There was indeed a valid,
The accused on the other hand, reiterated legitimate complaint and concern against
the fact that the dismissal was due to lack the accused Sensio, Millan and Jochico
of merits of the prosecution which would which was filed at a competent court with
have the same effect as an acquittal which jurisdiction on the said case. It was also
will bar the prosecution from prosecuting mentioned that the accused pleaded not
the accused for it will be unjust and guilty and during the time of trial, it was
unconstitutional for the accused due to proven that the case used against the
double jeopardy rule thus the appeal of accused were not sufficient to prove them
the plaintiff. guilty beyond reasonable doubt therefore
dismissing the case which translates to
Issue: Whether or Not the grant of acquittal. It explained further that there
petition by the court would place the are two instances when we can conclude
accused Sensio, Millan and Jochico in that there is jeopardy when first is that
double jeopardy the ground for the dismissal of the case
was due to insufficiency of evidence and
Held: Yes the revival of the case will put second, when the proceedings have been
the accused in double jeopardy for the reasonably prolonged as to violate the
very reason that the case has been right of the accused to a speedy trial. In
dismissed earlier due to lack of merits. It the 2 requisites given, it was the first on
is true that the criminal case of that is very much applicable to our case at
falsification was dismissed on a motion of bar where there was dismissal of the case
the accused however this was a motion due to insufficiency of evidence which will
filed after the prosecution had rested its bar the approval of the petition in the
case, calling for the evidence beyond case at bar for it will constitute double

Page | 28
MENDIOLA, MANILA
jeopardy on the part of the accused which fails to prove the defendant's guilt, the
the law despises. court upon defendant's motion shall
dismiss the case, such dismissal
amounting to an acquittal of the
defendant" (4 Moran's Comments on the
Rules of Court, 1980 Ed., p. 202, citing
Esmeña vs. Pogoy [G.R. No. L-54110, Gandicela vs. Lutero, 88 Phil. 299, 307
February 20, 1981] and People vs. Diaz, 94 Phil. 714, 717).
DISMISSAL BASED ON THE RIGHT TO The dismissal of a criminal case upon

SPEEDY TRIAL IS DISMISSAL ON THE motion of the accused because the
MERITS. The petitioners were insisting prosecution was not prepared for trial
on a trial. They relied on their since the complainant and his witnesses
constitutional right to have a speedy trial. did not appear at the trial is a dismissal
The fiscal was not ready because his equivalent to an acquittal that would bar
witness was not in court. Respondent further prosecution of the defendant for
judge on his own volition provisionally the same offense
dismissed the case. The petitioners did
not expressly manifest their conformity to
the provisional dismissal.
Hence, the dismissal placed them in

ESMENA VS. POGOY [102 SCRA 861; G.R.
jeopardy. Even if the petitioners, after
NO. L-54110; 20 FEB 1981]
invoking their right to a speedy trial,
moved for the dismissal of the case and,
FACTS: Petitioners Esmeña and Alba
therefore, consented to it, the dismissal
were charged with grave coercion in the
would still place them in jeopardy. The
Court of Cebu City for allegedly forcing Fr.
use of the word "provisional" would not
Thomas Tibudan to withdraw a sum of
change the legal effect of the dismissal
money worth P5000 from the bank to be
(Esguerra vs. De la Costa, 66 Phil. 134;
given to them because the priest lost in a
Gandicela vs. Lutero, 88 Phil. 299).
game of chance. During arraignment,
"If the defendant wants to exercise his petitioners pleaded “Not Guilty”. No trial
constitutional right to a speedy trial, he came in after the arraignment due to the
should ask, not for the dismissal, but for priest’s request to move it on another
the trial of the case. After the date. Sometime later Judge Pogoy issued
prosecution's motion for postponement of an order setting the trial Aug.16,1979 but
the trial is denied and upon order of the the fiscal informed the court that it
court the fiscal does not or cannot received a telegram stating that the
produce his evidence and, consequently, complainant was sick. The accused

Page | 29
MENDIOLA, MANILA
invoked their right to speedy trial. has been arraigned and has pleaded to the
Respondent judge dismissed the case complaint or information. In the case at
because the trial was already dragging the bar, all three conditions were present, as
accused and that the priest’s telegram did the case filed was grave coercion, filed in
not have a medical certificate attached to a court of competent jurisdiction as to
it in order for the court to recognize the where the coercion took place and last the
complainant’s reason to be valid in order accused were arraigned and has pleaded
to reschedule again another hearing. After to the complaint or the information. When
27 days the fiscal filed a motion to revive these three conditions are present then
the case and attached the medical the acquittal, conviction of the accused,
certificate of the priest proving the fact and the dismissal or termination of the
that the priest was indeed sick of case without his express consent
influenza. On Oct.24,1979, accused constitutes res judicata and is a bar to
Esmeña and Alba filed a motion to dismiss another prosecution for the offense
the case on the ground of double jeopardy. charged. In the case, it was evidently
shown that the accused invoked their
ISSUE: Whether or Not the revival of right to a speedy trial and asked for the
grave coercion case, which was dismissed trial of the case and not its termination
earlier due to complainant’s failure to which would mean that respondents had
appear at the trial, would place the no expressed consent to the dismissal of
accused in double jeopardy the case which would make the case filed
res judicata and has been dismissed by
HELD: Yes, revival of the case will put the the competent court in order to protect
accused in double jeopardy for the very the respondents as well for their right to
reason that the case has been dismissed speedy trial which will be equivalent to
already without the consent of the acquittal of the respondents which would
accused which would have an effect of an be a bar to further prosecution.
acquittal on the case filed. The dismissal
was due to complainant’s incapability to
present its evidence due to non
appearance of the witnesses and
complainant himself which would bar People vs. Pineda [G.R. No. L-44205,
further prosecution of the defendant for February 16, 1993]
the same offense. For double jeopardy to
exist these three requisites should be PRIOR CONVICTION OR ACQUITAL OR
present, that one, there is a valid DISMISSAL OF THE CASE WITHOUT
complaint or information filed second, THE CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED IS
that it is done before a court of competent NECESSARY TO SET IN MOTION
jurisdiction and third, that the accused DOUBLE JEOPARDY. Withal, the mere
filing of two informations charging the
Page | 30
MENDIOLA, MANILA
same offense is not an appropriate basis Commission No. 21, No. L-46366, March
for the invocation of double jeopardy 8, 1978, Buscayno vs. Military
since the first jeopardy has not yet set in Commissions Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 25, No. L-
by a previous conviction, acquittal or 58284, Nov. 19, 1981, 109 SCRA 273)."
termination of the case without the
consent of the accused (People vs. From the conclusion thus reached, it
Miraflores, 115 SCRA 586 [1982]; would appear that one simply "charged"
Nierras vs. Dacuycuy, 181 SCRA 8 may claim possible jeopardy in another
[1990]). case. However, a closer study of the case
adverted to reveals that the ponente may
In People vs. Miraflores (supra), the have overlooked the fact that the accused
accused therein, after he had pleaded to therein was not only charged, but he
the charge of multiple frustrated murder actually admitted his guilt to the charge of
in Criminal Case No. 88173 and serious physical injuries through reckless
subsequent to his arraignment on a imprudence and more importantly, he
separate charge of Murder in Criminal was convicted of such crime and
Case No. 88174, invoked the plea of commenced serving sentence.
double jeopardy but Justice Barredo who
spoke for the Court was far from Verily, there was no occasion in said case
convinced: to speak of jeopardy being properly
invoked by a person simply charged with
"But the more untenable aspect of the an offense if he is again charged for the
position of appellant is that when he same or identical offense. It may be
invoked the defense of double jeopardy, observed that in City Court of Manila the
what could have been the first jeopardy accused therein pleaded on the first
had not yet been completed or even offense of which he was charged and
began. It is settled jurisprudence in this subsequently convicted, unlike in the
Court that the mere filing of two scenario at bar where private respondent
informations or complaints charging the entered her plea to the second offense.
same offense does not yet afford the But the variance on this point is of no
accused in those cases the occasion to substantial worth because private
complain that he is being placed in respondent's plea to the second offense is,
jeopardy twice for the same offense, for as aforesaid, legally incomplete to sustain
the simple reason that the primary basis her assertion of jeopardy for probable
of the defense of double jeopardy is that conviction of the same felony, absent as
the accused has already been convicted or there is the previous conviction, acquittal,
acquitted in the first case or that the same or termination without her express
has been terminated without his consent. consent of the previous case for estafa,
(Bulaong vs. People, L-19344, July 27, and it being plain and obvious that the
1966, 17 SCRA 746; Silvestre vs. Military charges did not arise from the same acts.

Page | 31
MENDIOLA, MANILA
In short, in order for the first jeopardy to true and absolute owner of said parcel of
attach, the plea of the accused to the land free from all liens and encumbrances
charge must be coupled with either of any nature, when in truth and in fact
conviction, acquittal, or termination of the the herein accused has already sold and
previous case without his express consent encumbered to one Edilberto V. Ilano said
thereafter. parcel of land referred to above as can be
gleaned from a document entitled
"Kasulatan Ng Bilihan Ng Lupa Na May
Pasubali O Condicion" dated August 12,
G.R. NO. L-44205, FEBRUARY 16,
1969 and said Edilberto V. Ilano has
1993 ]PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
PETITIONER, VS. HON. GREGORIO G. already paid partial amount of
P130,850.00 to the herein accused.
PINEDA, BRANCH XXI, COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF RIZAL, AND On October 28, 1975, private respondent
CONSOLACION NAVAL, RESPONDENTS. Consolacion Naval moved to quash the
FACTS: That on or about the 17th day of information for falsification, premised,
among other things, on the apprehension
August, 1971, in the municipality of Pasig,
that she is in danger of being condemned
province of Rizal, Philippines, the above-
named accused, being then private for an identical offense. The following day,
Naval pleaded not guilty to the charge
individual did then and there willfully,
levelled against her for falsification and
unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public
on December 22, 1975, the court a
document by making untruthful
quo denied her motion to quash.
statements in a narration of facts,
committed as follows: the said accused on ISSUE: Whether or not the court may in
August 17, 1971, executed a document its discretion entertain at any time before
entitled "Application For Registration" for judgment a motion to quash on the
parcels of land located at Taytay, Rizal, to ground of jeopardy.
the effect that She is the exclusive owner
in fee simple of a parcel of land situated in HELD: It would now appear that prior
Malaking Bundok, Barrio Dolores, Taytay, conviction or acquittal in the first case, as
Rizal with Psu-248206 and that she "does long as the accused had entered his plea
not know of any mortgage or therein is no longer required in order that
encumbrance of any kind whatsoever the accused may move to quash a second
affecting said land or that any person has prosecution for the same offense on the
estate or interest therein, legal or ground of double jeopardy."
equitable, in possession remainder,
reversion or expectancy", as a result of Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a
which the Court in its Decision of March valid indictment, (b) before a competent
22, 1972 declared the herein accused the court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid
plea having been entered, and (e) the case
Page | 32
MENDIOLA, MANILA
was dismissed or otherwise terminated People vs. Tampal [G.R. No. 102485,
without the express consent of the May 22, 1995]
accused."
DISMISSAL OF A CASE BASED ON
ERRONEOUS APPLICATION OF THE
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL MAY BE
GABBY RECIT: APPEALED WITHOUT VIOLATING THE
RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY. In
Q: What are the elements of double
dismissing criminal cases based on the
jeopardy and legal jeopardy?
right of the accused to speedy trial, courts
ANS – carefully weigh the circumstances
attending each case. They should balance
The three (3) requisites of double the right of the accused and the right of
jeopardy are: the State to punish people who violate its
penal laws. Both the State and the accused
(1) a first jeopardy must have attached
are entitled to due process.
prior to the second,
In determining the right of an accused to
(2) the first jeopardy must have been
speedy trial, courts should do more than a
validly terminated, and
mathematical computation of the number
(3) a second jeopardy must be for the of postponements of the scheduled
same offense as that in the first. Legal hearings of the case. What offends the
right of the accused to speedy trial are
jeopardy attaches only: unjustified postponements which prolong
trial for an unreasonable length of time.
We reiterate our ruling in Gonzales vs.
(1) upon a valid indictment, Sandiganbayan:
(2) before a competent court, ". . . the right to a speedy disposition of a

case, like the right to speedy trial, is
(3) after arraignment deemed violated only when the
proceeding is attended by vexatious,
(4) when a valid plea has been entered, capricious or oppressive delays; or when
and unjustified postponements of trial are
asked for and secured; or when without
(5) when the defendant was acquitted or
cause or justifiable motive, along period
convicted, or the case was dismissed or
of time is allowed to elapse without the
otherwise terminated without the express
party having his case tried. Equally
consent of the accused.
applicable is the balancing test used to
determine whether a defendant has been

Page | 33
MENDIOLA, MANILA
denied his right to a speedy trial, or a further prosecution of the accused for the
speedy disposition of a case that matter in same offense. It must be stressed,
which the conduct of both the prosecution however, that these dismissals were
and the defense are weighed, and such predicated on the clear right of the
factors as non-assertion of his right and accused to speedy trial. These cases are
prejudice to the defendant resulting from not applicable to the petition at bench
delay, are considered." considering that the right of the private
respondents to a speedy trial has not
Private respondents cannot also invoke been violated by the State. For this reason,
their right against double jeopardy. The private respondents cannot invoke their
three (3) requisites of double jeopardy right against double jeopardy.
are:
(1) a first jeopardy must have attached

prior to the second,
(2) the first jeopardy must have been PEOPLE VS. TAMPAL [244 SCRA 202;
validly terminated, and G.R. NO. 102485; 22 MAY 1995]
(3) a second jeopardy must be for the same FACTS: Luis Tampal, Domingo Padumon,
offense as that in the first. Legal Arsenio Padumon, Samuel Padumon,
Pablito Suco, Dario Suco and Galvino
jeopardy attaches only: Cadling were charged of robbery with
homicide and multiple serious physical
injuries in the Regional Trial Court of
(1) upon a valid indictment, Zamboanga with Hon. Wilfredo
Ochotorena as presiding judge. However,
(2) before a competent court, only private respondents, Luis Tampal,
Domingo Padumon, Arsenio Padumon,
(3) after arraignment
and Samuel Padumon were arrested,
(4) when a valid plea has been entered, and while the others remained at large.
(5) when the defendant was acquitted or The case was set for hearing on July 26,
convicted, or the case was dismissed or 1991, but Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
otherwise terminated without the express Wilfredo Guantero moved for
consent of the accused. postponement due to his failure to
contact the material witnesses. The case
It is true that in an unbroken line of cases, was reset without any objection from the
we have held that dismissal of cases on defense counsel. The case was called on
the ground of failure to prosecute is September 20, 1991 but the prosecutor
equivalent to an acquittal that would bar was not present. The respondent judge
Page | 34
MENDIOLA, MANILA
considered the absence of the prosecutor another prosecution for the same offense,
as unjustified, and dismissed the criminal but in this case, this does not apply,
case for failure to prosecute. The considering that the rights of the accused
prosecution filed a motion for to a speedy trial was not violated by the
reconsidereation, claiming that his State. Therefore, the order of dismissal is
absence was because such date was a annulled and the case is remanded to the
Muslim holiday and the office of the court of origin for further proceedings.
Provincial prosecutor was closed on that
day. The motion was denied by
respondent judge.
ISSUES: Melo vs. People [G.R. No. L-3580, March

(1) Whether or Not the postponement is a 22, 1950]
violation of the right of the accused to a
speedy disposition of their cases. DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY. "No
person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
(2) Whether or Not the dismissal serves punishment for the same offense,"
as a bar to reinstatement of the case. according to Article III, section 1 (20) of
our Constitution. The rule of "double
HELD: In determining the right of an jeopardy" had a settled meaning in this
accused to speedy disposition of their jurisdiction at the time our Constitution
case, courts should do more than a was promulgated. It meant that when a
mathematical computation of the number person is charged with an offense and the
of postponements of the scheduled case is terminated either by acquittal or
hearings of the case. What are violative of conviction or in any other manner
the right of the accused to speedy trial are without the consent of the accused, the
unjustified postponements which prolong latter cannot again be charged with the
trial for an unreasonable length of time. In same or identical offense. This principle is
the facts above, there was no showing founded upon the law of reason, justice
that there was an unjust delay caused by and conscience. It is embodied in the
the prosecution, hence, the respondent maxim of the civil law non bis in idem, in
judge should have given the prosecution a the common law of England, and
fair opportunity to prosecute its case. undoubtedly in every system of
jurisprudence, and instead of having
The private respondents cannot invoke specific origin it simply always existed. It
their right against double jeopardy. In found expression in the Spanish law and
several cases it was held that dismissal on in the Constitution of the United States
the grounds of failure to prosecute is and is now embodied in our own
equivalent to an acquittal that would bar Constitution as one of the fundamental
rights of the citizens.
Page | 35
MENDIOLA, MANILA
It must be noticed that the protection of be said to be necessarily included in

the Constitutional inhibition is against a another when all the ingredients of the
second jeopardy for the same offense, the former constitute a part of the elements
only exception being, as stated in the constituting the latter (Rule 116, sec. 5.)
same Constitution, that "if an act is
punished by a law and an ordinance, In other words, one who has been
conviction or acquittal under either shall charged with an offense cannot be again
constitute a bar to another prosecution charged with the same or identical
for the same act." The phrase same offense though the latter be lesser or
offense, under the general rule, has greater than the former. "As the
always been construed to mean not only Government cannot begin with the
that the second offense charged is exactly highest, and then go down step by step,
the same as the one alleged in the first bringing the man into jeopardy for every
information, but also that the two dereliction included therein, neither can it
offenses are identical. There is identity begin with the lowest and ascend to the
between the two offenses when the highest with precisely the same result."
evidence to support a conviction for one (People vs. Cox, 107 Mich., 435, quoted
offense would be sufficient to warrant a with approval in U.S. vs. Lim Suco, 11
conviction for the other. This so- called Phil., 484; see also U.S. vs. Ledesma, 29
"same-evidence test" which was found to Phil., 431 and People vs. Martinez, 55
be vague and deficient, was restated by Phil., 6, 10.)
the Rules of Court in a clearer and more
accurate form. Under said Rules there is
identity between two offenses not only DOUBLE JEOPARDY DOES NOT APPLY
when the second offense is exactly the WHEN THE SECOND OFFENSE DOES
same as the first, but also when the NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE FIRST
second offense is an attempt to commit JEOPARDY ATTACHES. This rule of
the first or afrustration thereof, or when it identity does not apply, however, when
necessarily includes or is necessarily the second offense was not in existence at
included in the offense charged in the first the time of the first prosecution, for the
information. (Rule 113, sec. 9; U.S. vs. simple reason that in such case there is no
Lim Suco, 11 Phil., 484; U.S. vs. Ledesma, possibility for the accused, during the first
29 Phil., 431; People vs. Martinez, 55 prosecution, to be convicted for an
Phil., 6.) offense that was then inexistent. Thus,
where the accused was charged with
In this connection, an offense may be said physical injuries and after conviction the
to necessarily include another when some injured person dies, the charge for
of the essential ingredients of the former homicide against the same accused does
as alleged in the information constitute
not put him twice in jeopardy.
the latter. And vice-versa, an offense may
Page | 36
MENDIOLA, MANILA
This is the ruling laid down by the exist. General terms of a statute or
Supreme Court of the United States in the regulation should be so limited in their
Philippine case of Diaz vs. U.S., 223 U.S., application as not to lead to injustice,
442, followed by this Court in People vs. oppression, or an absurd consequence. It
Espino, G.R. No. 46123, 69 Phil., 471, and will always, therefore, be presumed that
these two cases are similar to the instant exceptions have been intended to their
case. Stating it in another form, the rule is language which would avoid results of
that "where after the first prosecution a this character. (In re Allen, 2 Phil., 641.)
new fact supervenes for which the
defendant is responsible, which changes
the character of the offense and, together GABBY RECIT:
with the facts existing at the time,
constitutes a new and distinct offense" QUESTION: How is first jeopardy
(15 Am. Jur., 66), the accused cannot be terminated in a manner that satisfies the
said to be in second jeopardy if indicted second element of the defense of double
for the new offense. This is the meaning of jeopardy?
"double jeopardy" as intended by our
Constitution for it was the one prevailing 1. By acquittal
in the jurisdiction at the time the 2. By final conviction
Constitution was promulgated, and no 3. By dismissal without the express
other meaning could have been intended consent of the accused
by our Rules of Court. 4. By dismissal on the merits
Accordingly, an offense may be said to

necessarily include or to be necessarily
included in another offense, for the
purpose of determining the existence of MELO VS PEOPLE [GR L-3580, 22 March
double jeopardy, when both offenses 1950] Second Division, Moran (CJ): 6
were in existence during the pendency of concur
the first prosecution, for otherwise, if the
second offense was then inexistent, no FACTS: Conrado Melo was charged in the
jeopardy could attach therefor during the Court of First Instance of Rizal, on 27
first prosecution, and consequently a December 1949, with frustrated homicide,
subsequent charge for the same cannot for having allegedly inflicted upon
constitute second jeopardy. By the very Benjamin Obillo, with a kitchen knife and
nature of things there can be no double with intent to kill, several serious wounds
jeopardy under such circumstance, and on different parts of the body, requiring
our Rules of Court cannot be construed to medical attendance for a period of more
recognize the existence of a condition than 30 days, and incapacitating him from
where such condition in reality does not
Page | 37
MENDIOLA, MANILA
performing his habitual labor for the former and the latter did not place the
same period of time. accused in a second jeopardy for the same
or identical offense.
On 29 December 1949, at 8:00 a.m., Melo
pleaded not guilty to the offense charged, There is identity between two offenses
and at 10:15 p.m. of the same day not only when the second offense is
Benjamin Obillo died from his wounds. exactly the same as the first, but also
Evidence of death was available to the when the second offense is an attempt to
prosecution only on 3 January 1950, and commit the first or a frustration thereof,
on the following day, 4 January 1950, an or when it necessarily includes or is
amended information was filed charging necessarily included in the offense
Melo with consummated homicide. Melo charged in the first information. This rule
filed a motion to quash the amended of identity does not apply, however, when
information alleging double jeopardy, the second offense was not in existence at
motion that was denied by the court. Melo the time of the first prosecution, for the
filed the petition for prohibition to enjoin simple reason that in such case there is no
the court from further entertaining the possibility for the accused, during the first
amended information. prosecution, to be convicted for an
offense that was then inexistent.
ISSUE: Whether the second information,
filed after the death of the victim, violates Further, when a person who has already
the accused’s right against double suffered his penalty for an offense, is
jeopardy. charged with a new and greater offense,
said penalty may be credited to him in
HELD: Rule 106, section 13, 2d case of conviction for the second offense.
paragraph, provides that "If it appears at
any time before judgment that a mistake
has been made in charging the proper
offense, the court may dismiss the
original complaint or information and People vs. Adil [G.R. No. L-41863, April
order the filing of a new one charging the 22, 1977]
proper offense, provided the defendant
would not be placed thereby in double DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING EVENT. In
jeopardy, and may also require the Silva, there was no question that the
witnesses to give bail for their extent of the damage to property and
appearance at the trial." Under this physical injuries suffered by the offended
provision, it was proper for the court to parties therein were already existing and
dismiss the first information and order known when the prior minor case was
the filing of a new one for the reason that prosecuted. What is controlling then in
the proper offense was not charged in the

Page | 38
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the instant case is Melo vs. People, 85 Phil. examination was made. The course (not
766, in which it was held: the length) of the healing of an injury may
not be determined before hand; it can
"This rule of identity does not apply, only be definitely known after the period
however, when the second offense was of healing has ended. That is the reason
not in existence at the time of the first why the court considered that there was a
prosecution, for the simple reason that in supervening fact occurring since the filing
such case there is no possibility for the of the original information."
accused during the first prosecution, to be
convicted for an offense that was then
inexistent. Thus, where the accused was
charged with physical injuries and after GABBY RECIT:
conviction the injured dies, the charge of QUESTION: What is the same evidence
homicide against the same accused does test?
not put him twice in jeopardy."
ANSWER: Whether the evidence needed
So also is People vs. Yorac, 42 SCRA, 230, in one case will support a conviction in
to the following effect: "Stated differently, the other
if after the first prosecution 'a new fact
supervenes' on which defendant may be
held liable, resulting in altering the
character of the crime and giving rise to a
new and distinct offense, 'the accused
PEOPLE VS ADIL G.R. No. L-41863, April 22,
cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if
1977BARREDO,
indicted for the new offense.'"
FACTS: Margarito Fama Jr.,
In People vs. Buling, 107 Phil. 112, We
while armed with a piece of
explained how a deformity may be
stone, assault, attack and use
considered as a supervening fact.
personal violence upon one Miguel
Referring to the decision in People vs.
Viajar by then hurling the latter
Manolong, 85 Phil. 829, We held:
with a stone,hitting said Miguel Viajar
"No finding was made in the first on the right cheek, thereby inflicting
examination that the injuries had caused physical injuries which required medical
deformity and the loss of the use of the attendance from 5to 9 days baring
right hand. As nothing was mentioned in complications. On July 7 1975, the
the first medical certificate about the accused entered a plea of not guilty
deformity and the loss of the use of the &slight physical injuries. On June 8, 1975,
right hand, we presumed that such fact when Viajar developed a permanent scar
was not apparent or could have been and deformity on the face, he filed a more
discernible at the time the first
Page | 39
MENDIOLA, MANILA
serious charge (serious physical injuries) acquitted of the charge of qualified theft,
arising from the same incident. could not be subsequently reinstated as a
co- accused in the same information
ISSUE: Is there double jeopardy in this case? without a prohibited second jeopardy
arising under the circumstances, absent
HELD: NO. When the complaint was
filed on April 17, 1975, only three satisfactory proof that he had refused or
failed to testify against his co-accused
days had passed since the incident in which
[Bogo-Medellin Milling Co. v. Son 209
the injuries were sustained took place, and there
SCRA 329].
were yet no indications of a graver
injury or consequence to be In Argel v. Judge Pascua, A.M. No. RTJ-
suffered by said offended party.
94-1131, August 20, 2001, where the
Evidently, it was only later that the judge amended her decision of acquittal
alleged deformity became apparent. (which had already been promulgated)
People Vs. yorac, it was held that if because she had earlier overlooked the
after the First prosecution a new fact testimony of an eyewitness, it was held
supervenes on which defendant may
that the amended decision is null and void
be held liable, resulting in altering for violating the right against double
the character of the crime and giving jeopardy.
rise to a new and distinct offense, the
accused cannot be said to be in second Crimes Covered: With the presence of
jeopardy if indicted for the new the requisites, the accused cannot be
offense. In other words, in the prosecuted anew for an identical offense,
peculiar circumstances of this case, the or for any attempt to commit the same or
plea of double jeopardy of private frustration thereof, or for any offense
respondent Fama Jr. cannot hold which necessarily includes or is
necessarily included in the offense
charged in the original complaint or
information [People v. Sarabia, G.R. No.
142024, July 20, 2001]. See also Perez v.
NACHURA: Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA 236; Mallari
v. People, 168 SCRA 422.
DISCHARGE OF THE CO-ACCUSED. The
discharge from the information of a co- a) Reckless imprudence resulting in
accused who is to be utilized as a damage to property with multiple
government witness must be considered physical injuries punished under Art. 365,
solid for purposes of determining RPC is not identical with violation of Art.
whether a second prohibited jeopardy 275, RPC, for abandonment of one’s
would attach upon reinstatement as a co- victim [Lamera v. Court of Appeals, 198
accused x x x Petitioner, having been SCRA 186].

Page | 40
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Under the second sentence of Sec. 21, Art. jeopardy is available only where an
Ill, when an act is punished by a law and identity is shown to exist between the
an ordinance, conviction or acquittal earlier and the subsequent offenses
under either shall constitute a bar to charged. In contrast, where one offense is
another prosecution for the same act. See charged under a municipal ordinance
People v. Judge Relova, 148 SCRA 292. while the other is penalized by a statute,
the critical inquiry is to the identity of the
acts which the accused is said to have
committed and which are alleged to have
given rise to the two offenses: the
People vs. Relova [G.R. No. L-45129, constitutional protection against double
March 6, 1987] jeopardy is available so long as the acts
which constitute or have given rise to the
DOUBLE JEOPARDY OF PUNISHMENT first offense under a municipal ordinance
FOR THE SAME ACT. The first sentence are the same acts which constitute or
of Article IV (22) sets forth the general have given rise to the offense charged
rule: the constitutional protection against under a statute.
double jeopardy is not available where
the second prosecution is for an offense The question may be raised why one rule
that is different from the offense charged should exist where two offenses under
in the first or prior prosecution, although two different sections of the same statute
both the first and second offenses may be or under different statutes are charged,
based upon the same act or set of acts. and another rule for the situation where
The second sentence of Article IV (22) one offense is charged under a municipal
embodies an exception to the general ordinance and another offense under a
proposition: the constitutional protection, national statute. If the second sentence of
against double jeopardy is available the double jeopardy provision had not
although the prior offense charged under been written into the Constitution,
an ordinance be different from the offense conviction or acquittal under a municipal
charged subsequently under a national ordinance would never constitute a bar to
statute such as the Revised Penal Code, another prosecution for the same act
provided that both offenses spring from under a national statute. An offense
the same act or set of acts. Put a little penalized by municipal ordinance is, by
differently, where the offenses charged definition, different from an offense under
are penalized either by different sections a statute. The two offenses would never
of the same statute or by different constitute the same offense having been
statutes, the important inquiry relates to promulgated by different rule-making
the identity of offenses charged: the authorities — though one be subordinate
constitutional protection against double to the other — and the plea of double
jeopardy would never be. The discussions
Page | 41
MENDIOLA, MANILA
during the 1934-1935 Constitutional shown need not be absolute identity: the
Convention show that the second first and second offenses may be regarded
sentence was inserted precisely for the as the "same offense" where the second
purpose of extending the constitutional offense necessarily includes the first
protection against double jeopardy to a offense or is necessarily included in such
situation which would not otherwise be first offense or where the second offense
covered by the first sentence. is an attempt to commit the first or a
frustration thereof. Thus, for the
The question of identity or lack of identity constitutional plea of double jeopardy to
of offenses is addressed by examining the be available, not all the technical elements
essential elements of each of the two constituting the first offense need be
offenses charged, as such elements are set present in the technical definition of the
out in the respective legislative second offense. The law here seeks to
definitions of the offenses involved. The prevent harassment of an accused person
question of identity of the acts which are by multiple prosecutions for offenses
claimed to have generated liability both which though different from one another
under a municipal ordinance and a are nonetheless each constituted by a
national statute must be addressed, in the common set or overlapping sets of
first instance, by examining the location of technical elements. As Associate Justice
such acts in time and space. When the acts and later Chief Justice Ricardo Paras
of the accused as set out in the two cautioned in People vs. del Carmen, et al.,
informations are so related to each other 88 Phil. 51 (1951):
in time and space as to be reasonably
regarded as having taken place on the While the rule against double jeopardy
same occasion and where those acts have prohibits prosecution for the same
been moved by one and the same, or a offense, it seems elementary that an
continuing, intent or voluntary design or accused should be shielded against being
negligence, such acts may be prosecuted for several offenses made out
appropriately characterized as an integral from a single act. Otherwise, an unlawful
whole capable of giving rise to penal act or omission may give use to several
liability simultaneously under different prosecutions depending upon the ability
legal enactments (a municipal ordinance of the prosecuting officer to imagine or
and a national statute). concoct as many offenses as can be
justified by said act or omission by simply
It is perhaps important to note that the adding or subtracting essential elements.
rule limiting the constitutional protection Under the theory of appellant the crime of
against double jeopardy to a subsequent rape may be converted into a crime of
prosecution for the same offense is not to coercion, by merely alleging that by force
be understood with absolute literalness. and intimidation the accused prevented
The identity of offenses that must be

Page | 42
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the offended girl from remaining a virgin." in a written statement that he had caused
(88 Phil. at 53; emphases supplied). the installation of the electrical devices
"in order to lower or decrease the
By the same token, acts of a person which readings of his electric meter."
physically occur on the same occasion and
are infused by a common intent or design On 24 November 1975, an Assistant City
or negligence and therefore form a moral Fiscal of Batangas City filed before the
unity, should not be segmented and sliced, City Court of Batangas City an information
as it were, to produce as many different against Manuel Opulencia for violation of
acts as there are offenses under municipal Ordinance 1, Series of 1974, Batangas City.
ordinances or statutes that an A violation of this ordinance was, under
enterprising prosecutor can find. its terms, punishable by a fine "ranging
from P5.00 to P50.00 or imprisonment,
which shall not exceed 30 days, or both, at
the discretion of the court." Opulencia
pleaded not guilty to the information filed.
PEOPLE VS RELOVA [GR L-45129, 6
On 2 February 1976, he filed a motion to
March 1987]
dismiss the information upon the grounds
FACTS: On 1 February 1975, members of that the crime there charged had already
the Batangas City Police together with prescribed and that the civil indemnity
personnel of the Batangas Electric Light there sought to be recovered was beyond
System, equipped with a search warrant the jurisdiction of the Batangas City Court
issued by a city judge of Batangas City, to award. In an order dated 6 April 1976,
searched and examined the premises of the Batangas City Court granted the
the Opulencia Carpena Ice Plant and Cold motion to dismiss on the ground of
Storage owned and operated by Manuel prescription, it appearing that the offense
Opulencia. The police discovered that charged was a light felony which
electric wiring, devices and contraptions prescribes 2 months from the time of
had been installed, without the necessary discovery thereof, and it appearing
authority from the city government, and further that the information was filed by
"architecturally concealed inside the walls the fiscal more than 9 months after
of the building" owned by Opulencia. discovery of the offense charged in
These electric devices and contraptions February 1975. 14 days later, on 20 April
wereallegedly "designed purposely to 1976, the Acting City Fiscal of Batangas
lower or decrease the readings of electric City filed before the Court of First
current consumption in the electric meter Instance of Batangas, Branch II, another
of the said electric [ice and cold storage] information against Manuel Opulencia,
plant." During the subsequent this time for theft of electric power under
investigation, Manuel Opulencia admitted Article 308 in relation to Article 309,

Page | 43
MENDIOLA, MANILA
paragraph (1), of the Revised Penal Code offense charged under an ordinance be
(Criminal Case 266) before the Court of different from the offense charged
First Instance of Batangas, Branch II. subsequently under a national statute
Before he could be arraigned thereon, such as the Revised Penal Code, provided
Opulencia filed a Motion to Quash, dated 5 that both offenses spring from the same
May 1976, alleging that he had been act or set of acts.
previously acquitted of the offense
charged in the second information and The Bill of Rights deals with two (2)
that the filing thereof was violative of his kinds of double jeopardy.
constitutional right against double The first sentence of clause 20, section 1,
jeopardy. By Order dated 16 August 1976, Article III of the Constitution, ordains that
Judge Benjamin Relova granted the "no person shall be twice put in jeopardy
accused's Motion to Quash and ordered of punishment for the same offense." The
the case dismissed. A Motion for second sentence of said clause provides
Reconsideration was filed but was denied
that "if an act is punishable by a law and
by the Judge in an Order dated 18 an ordinance, conviction or acquittal
November 1976. On 1 December 1976, under either shall constitute a bar to
the petition for Certiorari and Mandamus another prosecution for the same act."
was filed in the Supreme Court by the Thus, the first sentence prohibits double
Acting City Fiscal of Batangas City on jeopardy of punishment for the same
behalf of the People.
offense, whereas the second contemplates
ISSUE: Whether under the information in double jeopardy of punishment for the
case 16443, Opulencia could — if he failed same act. Under the first sentence, one
to plead double jeopardy — be convicted may be twice put in jeopardy of
of the same act charged in case 16054, in punishment of the same act, provided that
which he has already been acquitted. he is charged with different offenses, or
the offense charged in one case is not
HELD: The constitutional protection included in, or does not include, the crime
against double jeopardy is not available charged in the other case.
where the second prosecution is for an
offense that is different from the offense The second sentence applies, even if the
charged in the first or prior prosecution, offenses charged are not the same, owing
although both the first and second to the fact that one constitutes a violation
offenses may be based upon the same act of an ordinance and the other a violation
or set of acts. The second sentence of of a statute. If the two charges are based
Article IV (22) embodies an exception to on one and the same act conviction or
the general proposition: the acquittal under either the law or the
constitutional protection, against double ordinance shall bar a prosecution under
jeopardy is available although the prior the other. Incidentally, such conviction or

Page | 44
MENDIOLA, MANILA
acquittal is not indispensable to sustain offenses may be regarded as the "same

the plea of double jeopardy of offense" where the second offense
punishment for the same offense. So long necessarily includes the first offense or is
as jeopardy has attached under one of the necessarily included in such first offense
informations charging said offense, the or where the
defense may be availed of in the other
case involving the same offense, even if second offense is an attempt to commit
there has been neither conviction nor the first or a frustration thereof. Thus, for
acquittal in either case. the constitutional plea of double jeopardy
to be available, not all the technical
Thus, where the offenses charged are elements constituting the first offense
penalized either by different sections of need be present in the technical definition
the same statute or by different statutes, of the second offense. The law here seeks
the important inquiry relates to the to prevent harassment of an accused
identity of offenses charged: the person by multiple prosecutions for
constitutional protection against double offenses which though different from one
jeopardy is available only where an another are nonetheless each constituted
identity is shown to exist between the by a common set or overlapping sets of
earlier and the subsequent offenses technical elements. Acts of a person which
charged. In contrast, where one offense is physically occur on the same occasion and
charged under a municipal ordinance are infused by a common intent or design
while the other is penalized by a statute, or negligence and therefore form a moral
the critical inquiry is to the identity of the unity, should not be segmented and sliced,
acts which the accused is said to have as it were, to produce as many different
committed and which are alleged to have acts as there are offenses under municipal
given rise to the two offenses: the ordinances or statutes that an
constitutional protection against double enterprising prosecutor can find. It
jeopardy is available so long as the acts remains to point out that the dismissal by
which constitute or have given rise to the the Batangas City Court of the information
first offense under a municipal ordinance for violation of the Batangas City
are the same acts which constitute or Ordinance upon the ground that such
have given rise to the offense charged offense had already prescribed, amounts
under a statute. It is perhaps important to to an acquittal of the accused of that
note that the rule limiting the offense.
constitutional protection against double
jeopardy to a subsequent prosecution for Under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code,
the same offense is not to be understood "prescription of the crime" is one of the
with absolute literalness. The identity of grounds for "total extinction of criminal
offenses that must be shown need not be liability." Under the Rules of Court, an
absolute identity: the first and second order sustaining a motion to quash based

Page | 45
MENDIOLA, MANILA
on prescription is a bar to another

prosecution for the same offense.
NACHURA:
DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING EVENT.

The accused may still be prosecuted for
another offense if a subsequent
development changes the character of the
first indictment under which he may have
already been charged or convicted. Thus,
under Section 7, Rule 117, Rules of Court,
the conviction of the accused shall not be
a bar to another prosecution for an
offense which necessarily includes the
offense charged in the original complaint
or information when:
(a) the graver offense developed due to

supervening facts arising from the same
act or omission;
(b) the facts constituting the graver

offense arose or were discovered only
after the filing of the former complaint or
information; or
(c) the plea of guilty to a lesser offense

was made without the consent of the
fiscal or the offended party. See People v.
Judge Villarama, 210 SCRA 246.

Page | 46

Double Jeopardy. Sec. 21. Art. Ill: "No

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Double Jeopardy. Sec. 21. Art. Ill: "No

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017

been made in charging the proper offense,

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

express consent. There is no double jeopardy where the

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

The fundamental philosophy highlighting Philippine Savings Bank vs. Bermoy

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

exceptions to the rule. Double jeopardy of the innocent against wrongful

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Considering the factual setting in the case

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

an acquittal because the failure to Court of Balungao, Pangasinan. He

GABBY RECIT: In the case at bar, the converted dismissal

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

a purely capricious dismissal of an Appeal from the order of dismissal by the

In People v. Judge Tac-an, G.R. No. Similarly, as held in Summerville General

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Furthermore, such dismissal is not When the Supreme Court acts on

(a) a valid complaint or information;

(b) a competent court;

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

an administrative complaint dated 17 the transmitted records did not contain

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

The Regional Trial Court of Parañaque

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Conclusion DOUBLE JEOPARDY REQUIRES A VALID

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

HELD: The Supreme Court held that it is

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

in complete self-defense. Said testimony (1) a valid information sufficient in form

People vs. City Court of Silay [G.R. No.

DISMISSAL ON THE GROUND OF

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

DISMISSAL BASED ON THE RIGHT TO The dismissal of a criminal case upon

Hence, the dismissal placed them in

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

(2) before a competent court, ". . . the right to a speedy disposition of a

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

(1) a first jeopardy must have attached

ISSUES: Melo vs. People [G.R. No. L-3580, March

It must be noticed that the protection of be said to be necessarily included in

Accordingly, an offense may be said to

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

acquittal is not indispensable to sustain offenses may be regarded as the "same

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM