RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!!

Sec. 21 Art. III

No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an
act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either
shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

REQUISITES:
1. Valid complaint or information
2. Filed before a competent court
3. To which the defendant had pleaded
4. Defendant was previously acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent.

IF AN INFORMATION FILED IS INVALID, DOUBLE JEOPARDY WILL NOT ATTACH

BUT IF THE INFORMATION IS DISMISSED FOR BEING INVALID WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE
ACCUSED, DOUBLE JEOPARDY WILL ATTACH
Defendant was regularly arraigned, pleaded not guilty, put upon his trial by the
calling of the government's witnesses against him, and thereafter discharged by the
trial court. It is true that the court made no express finding as to whether the
defendant did or did not commit the specific acts set out in the information, and
that the dismissal of the information was based on the court's conclusion of law
that there being no copyright law in force in these Islands, the acts which it is
alleged were committed by the defendant do not constitute the crime with which he
was charged, nor any other defense defined and penalized by law.
The case has been brought here by the Government in an attempt to appeal from the
judgment of the court below. We are asked to reverse that judgment and grant a new
trial, on the ground that the trial judge erred in declaring that no copyright law
is in force in these Islands.
The allowance of an appeal by the Government would undoubtedly place the defendant
twice in jeopardy in violation of the provisions of the Philippine Bill of Rights.
-US vs Yam Tung Way

Other examples of invalid information:

INFORMATION IN SANDIGANBAYAN HAS NO INDICATION THAT OFFENSE "IS IN RELATION TO

THEIR OFFICE"
Offenses triable before the Sandiganbayan, one of its jurisdiction is the offenses
committed by public officer “in relation to their office” – jurisdictional such
that if complaint is filed beforthe Sandiganbayan agains public officer cognizable
within its jurisdiction but the information does not say that the offense was
committed in relation to their office of the accused, then that is not a valid
information, even it were dismissed by purposes of correcting it, double jeopardy
will not set in because the dismissal would not have done without the compliance
with the 1st requirement of double jeopardy to have a valid information.
-Herrera vs Sandiganbayan

BUT, IF THERE ARE OTHER ALLEGATIONS THAT SHOW THE OFFENSE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
COMMITTED EXCEPT BY REASON OF THE OFFICE
Public officer who is the accused also although the phras “in relation to their
office” was not expressly included in the.There were other allegations in that
information which clearly show the offense would not have been committed by that
accused except by reason of his public office.
So, even if such phrase in relation to his office would not appear expressly if
there are other lines there or assertions at the crime could not have been
committed in relation to the office, well that should still be considered as a
valid information.
-Gayle vs People
WILL NOT ATTACH IN PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS
Double jeopardy does not attach in preliminary investigation
-Icasiano v. Sandiganbayan

FILED BEFORE A COMPETENT COURT

WHY? BECAUSE THERE IS NO DANGER OF CONVICTION. A COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION CANNOT
RENDER A VALID JUDGMENT
In the case of People v. Galano for example, a prosecution for estafa was
dismissed by the court of first instance of Batangas for lack of territorial
jurisdiction. Subsequently, a charge for the same offense was commenced in the
court of first instance of Manila and the accused moved to quash, invoking double
jeopardy. The Supreme Court held that the defense was not available because the
defendant had not been in danger of conviction in the original prosecution.
-Cruz

Examples:

FILED IN WRONG VENUE

Where the first information was filed in the RTC of Angeles City but jurisdiction
was with the RTC of Pampanga inasmuch as the offense was committed in Mabalacat,
Pampanga. Accordingly, when it becomes manifest before the judgment that a mistake
has been made in charging the proper offense, the first charge shall be dismissed
to pave the way for the filing of the proper offense. The dismissal of the first
case will not give rise to double jeopardy
-Cudia vs CA

PROCEEDINGS NOT RECORDED

the accused was convicted of stealing a carabao by a municipal court in which,
however, the proceedings were not recorded. The decision was appealed to the court
of first instance which, in the exercise of its concurrent original jurisdiction,
convicted the accused anew. The defendant challenged this second conviction,
claiming that it had placed him in double jeopardy.
The Supreme Court sustained the court of first instance, holding that since the
proceedings in the municipal court were totally void for lack of record, double
jeopardy could not attach.
-People vs Brecinio

MILITARY COURT TRIES CIVILIAN

It was held that the military tribunals had no jurisdiction to try cases of
civilians, which fell under the competence of the ordinary civil courts even during
the period of martial law. The judgments of the military tribunals in these cases
were, therefore, invalidated and the petitioners released.
Note: The ruling shoud apply prospectively
-Olaguer vs MIlitary Commission

TO WHICH THE DEFENDANT HAS PLEADED

WHY?
Because defendant is never placed under jeopardy until after he shall have pleaded
to the charge against him during the arraignment.
-Cruz

DON'T PLEA GUILTY AND THEN PROVE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES LATER ON

the Court ruled that when the accused, after pleading guilty, testified to prove
mitigating circumstances, the testimony had the effect of vacating his plea of
guilty.
-People vs Balisacan
DEFENDANT WAS PREVIOUSLY ACQUITTED OR CONVICTED, OR THE CASE DISMISSED OR OTHERWISE
TERMINATED WITHOUT HIS EXPRESS CONSENT
WHY?
There is not much problem when the case is terminated by acquittal or conviction as
the effects ofthese decisions are settled in this jurisdiction. The acquittal is,
ofcourse, executory upon rendition and entitles the accused to immediate release.
The judgment of conviction is appealable within fifteen days but becomes final if
the convict starts serving his sentence even before the expiration
of this period.

WHEN NOT TERMINATED:

1. Plea-bargaining without the consent of the fiscal:
The right against double jeopardy given to the accused in Section 2, Rule 116 of
the Rules of Court applies in cases where both the fiscal and the offended party
consent to the private respondent's change of plea. Since this is not the situation
here, the private respondent cannot claim this privilege. Instead, the more
pertinent and applicable provision is that found in Section 7, Rule 117 which
states:

Sec. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. —

xxx xxx xxx
However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution
for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former
complaint or information under any of the following instances:
(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the
Fiscal and of the offended party;

Under this rule, the private respondent could still be prosecuted under the
original charge of violation of Section 16 of RA 6425 as amended because of the
lack of consent of the Fiscal who also represents the offended party, i.e., the
state. More importantly, the trial court's approval of his change of plea was
irregular and improper.
-People vs Judge Villarama

2. The criminal case was mistakenly dismissed by the court during a hearing that
had already been earlier cancelled and removed from the court calendar for that day

-Gorion v. Regional Trial Court of Cebu

3. The re-taking of testimony, made necessary because the transcript of

stenographic notes was incomplete and a new judge had taken over the case, does not
give rise to double jeopardy.
-Guerrero v. Court of Appeals

4. Where the motion to withdraw his appeal from the decision of the MTC (which
imposed only a fine as penalty) was denied, his payment of the fine did not make
the decision of the MTC
final and executory, Accordingly, petitioner was not placed in double jeopardy by
the decision of the RTC.
-Teodoro vs CA

5. The promulgation of only one part of the decision, i.e., the modified civil
indemnity liability, is not a bar to the promulgation of the other part, the
imposition of the criminal accountability, and does not constitute a violation of
the proscription against double jeopardy.
WHY?
Because the promulgation is incomplete. It has to be complete promulgation for the
termination of the case and for jeopary to attach.
-Cuizon vs CA

6. PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL WITH CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED

a provisional dismissal of a criminal case is dismissal without prejudice to
reinstatement thereof before the order of dismissal becomes final, or to the
subsequent filing of a new information within the periods allowed under the Revised
Penal Code or the Revised Rules of Court.

Sec. 8, Rule 117, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, provides a time-bar of two
(2) years within which the State may revive criminal cases provisionally dismissed
with the express consent of the accused and with a priori notice to the offended
party, if the offense charged is penalized by more than six (6) years imprisonment;
and one (1) year if the penalty imposable does not exceed six (6) years
imprisonment or a fine in whatever amount. This rule took effect on December 1,
2000, and must be applied prospectively in order to prevent injustice to the State
and avoid absurd, unreasonable and wrongful results in the administration of
justice.
-People v. Panfilo Lacson,

7. WHEN PROSECUTION IS DENIED DUE PROCESS

But where the prosecution is denied due process, such denial results in loss or
lack of jurisdiction, and thus, appeal may be allowed
-People v. Navarro

This was reiterated in People v. Alberto where the Supreme Court said that a purely
capricious dismissal of an information deprives the State of fair opportunity to
prosecute and convict; it denies the prosecution its day in court; it is a
dismissal without due process and therefore, null and void.

It was held that the court acted without jurisdiction when it dismissed the case
merely because none of the witnesses notified by the trial court appeared during
the pre-trial.
-People vs Judge Tac-an

8. FINDING OF MISTRIAL

9. WAIVER OF RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY (ESTOPPEL)

Likewise, the prosecution can appeal if the accused has waived or is estopped from
invoking his right against double jeopardy
-People v. Obsania

"... cannot now be allowed to invoke the plea of double jeopardy after inducing the
trial court to commit an error which otherwise it would not have committed. In
other words, appellee can not adopt a posture of double dealing without running
afoul with the doctrine of estoppel. It is well-settled that the parties to a
justiciable proceeding may not, on appeal, adopt a theory inconsistent with that
which they sustained in the lower court (Williams v. McMicking, 17 Phil. 408;
Molina v. Somes, etc.). Consequently, appellee is now estopped from invoking the
plea of double jeopardy upon the theory that she would still be convicted under an
information which she branded to be insufficient in the lower court."
-People vs. Archilla

WHEN TERMINATED:

1. PERMANENT DISMISSAL
A permanent dismissal of a criminal case may refer
to the termination of the case on the merits, resulting in either the conviction or
acquittal of the accused;
to the dismissal of the case because of the prosecution’s failure to prosecute;
(Trivia:
An action may be dismissed for failure to prosecute in any of the following
instances: (1) if the plaintiff fails to appear at the time of trial; or (2) if he
fails to prosecute the action for an unreasonable length of time; or (3) if he
fails to comply with the Rules of Court or any order of the court)
or
to the dismissal thereof on the ground of unreasonable delay in the proceedings in
violation of the RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO SPEEDY TRIAL

2. PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED

But where the dismissal was made at the instance of the Provincial Fiscal, because
on reinvestigation, it was shown that the complainants were the real
aggressors and the accused acted only in self-defense, the dismissal was made
without the consent of the accused, because express consent has been defined
as that which is directly given, either viva voce or in writing, a positive,
direct, unequivocal consent requiring no inference or implication to supply its
meaning.
-People vs Judge Vergara

Likewise, the reinstatement of the information, after the court dismissed the case
at the instance of the prosecution without asking for the consent of the accused,
gives rise to double jeopardy.
-Tupaz vs Judge Ulep

3. GRANT OF DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

Thus, the grant of a demurrer to evidence is equivalent to an acquittal, and any
further prosecution of the accused would violate the constitutional proscription
against double jeopardy
-San Vicente vs People

Trivia:
If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court,
the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is
filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present
evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for
the prosecution.

4. DISCHARGE OF CO-ACCUSED AS STATE WITNESS

The discharge from the information of a co-accused who is to be utilized as a
government witness must be considered solid for purposes of determining whether a
second prohibited jeopardy would
attach upon reinstatement as a co-accused x x x Petitioner, having been acquitted
of the charge of qualified theft, could not be subsequently reinstated as a co-
accused in the same information without a prohibited second jeopardy arising under
the circumstances, absent satisfactory proof that he had refused or failed to
testify against his co-accused.
-Bogo-Medellin Milling Co. v. Son

DOUBLE JEOPARDY ATTACHES TO CRIMES NECESSARILY INCLUDED

With the presence of the requisites, the accused cannot be prosecuted anew for an
identical offense, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or
for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
offense charged in the original complaint or information.
-People v. Sarabia
DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING EVENT:
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.

RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE!!!

Sec. 18 Art III
2. No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Note the EXCEPTIONS

1. Punishment for a crime whereof one has been duly convicted.
2. Service in defense of the State [Sec. 4, Art. II], See People v. Zosa, 38 0.G.
1676].
3. Naval [merchant marine] enlistment. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 75.
4. Posse comitatus. See U.S. v. Pompeya, 31 Phil 245.
It has also been held that persons may be validly pressed into service under the
posse comitatus for the apprehension of criminals. A requirement to this effect was
sustained in U.S. v. Pompeya? where the Supreme Court declared that in the pursuit
of persons who have violated the law, such as brigands, the authorities "might
command all the male inhabitants of a certain age to assist
them." This would be justified under the policepower.
5. Return to work order in industries affected with public interest. See Kapisanan
ng Manggagawa sa Kahoy v. Gotamco Sawmills, 45 O.G. Supp. No.9, p. 147.
6. Patria potestas [Art. 311, Civil Code]
Finally,it should be remembered that unemancipated minors come under the patria
potestas and so"are obliged to obey their parents so long as they are under
parental power, and to observe respect and reverence toward them always." Thus, a
teenager who wants to go to a disco cannot invoke the Constitution against her
mother, who insists that she spruce up her bedroom, and the whole house as well.

EX-POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER!!!

EX POST FACTO LAW

(i) It refers to criminal matters;
(ii) It is retroactive in application; and
(iii) It works to the prejudice of the accused.

BILL OF ATTAINDER
It substitutes legislative fiat for a judicial determination of guilt. Thus, it is
only when a statute applies either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable
members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without judicial
trial that it becomes a bill of attainder.

ANTI-SUBVERSION ACT IS NOT A BILL OF ATTAINDER

the Supreme Court held that the Anti-Subversion Act is not a bill of attainder,
because it does not specify the Communist Party of the Philippines or the members
thereof for the purpose of punishment; what it does is simply declare the Party to
be an organized conspiracy to overthrow the Government; and the term “Communist
Party of the Philippines” is used solely for definitional purposes.