DOUBLE JEOPARDY - MAD

DOUBLE JEOPARDY 4. Conviction, acquittal, or dismissal of the case without the express
consent of the accused.

(Sec. 7, Rule 117, Rules of Court, People v. Obsania)

Sec. 21. Art. Ill: “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, Filed competent court
conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same act.”  Where the six criminal information were erroneously filed with the City
Court of Lucena (which did not have jurisdiction, as the proper court
was the CFI of Quezon), even if the accused had already been arraigned,
no double jeopardy will attach in the subsequent prosecution before
What is Double Jeopardy? the CFI of Quezon.
 When a person was charged with an offense and the case was  Accordingly, when it becomes manifest before the judgment that a
terminated by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, the first charge
his consent, he cannot again be charged with the same or identical shall be dismissed to pave the way for the filing of the proper offense.
offense. The dismissal of the first case will not give rise to double jeopardy
inasmuch as, in this case, it is clear that the MTC did not have
What are the two types of double jeopardy? jurisdiction to try the offense of rape.
1. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same Valid complaint or information
offense
2. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal  In Icasiano v. Sandiganbayan, double jeopardy does not attach in
under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same preliminary investigation.
act. Arraignment and plea by the accused
When will double jeopardy attach?  When the respondent had not yet been arraigned, double jeopardy may
1. The first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second not be validly invoked.
2. The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated  The grant of a motion to quash, filed before the accused makes his plea,
3. The second jeopardy must be for the commission of the same offense or can be appealed by the prosecution because the accused has not yet
the second offense must include or is necessarily included in the first been placed in jeopardy (Sec. 9, Rule 117, Rules of Court)
information, or is an attempt to commit the same or a frustration  In People v. Balisacan, the Court ruled that when the accused, after
thereof pleading guilty, testified to prove mitigating circumstances, the
testimony had the effect of vacating his plea of guilty.
What are the requisites of double jeopardy? ( J C A C )
Conviction, acquittal, or dismissal of the case without the express consent
1. Court of competent jurisdiction of the accused
2. A complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
conviction  In People v. Judge Pineda, the Supreme Court ruled that a prior
3. Arraignment and plea by the accused conviction, or acquittal, or termination of the case without the express

1
DOUBLE JEOPARDY - MAD
consent of the accused is still required before the first jeopardy can be
pleaded to abate a second prosecution.
 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.
 In Philippine Savings Bank v. Spouses Bermoy, the fundamental
philosophy highlighting the finality of an acquittal by the trial court cuts
deep into the “humanity of the laws and a jealous watchfulness over the
rights of the citizen when brought in an unequal contest with the State”.
The State, with all its resources and power should not be allowed to
make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense,
thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal, and
compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as
well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent, he may be
found guilty.
 Dismissal of action: Permanent or Provisional
o Permanent dismissal may refer to the:
a. termination of the case on the merits, resulting in either
the conviction or acquittal of the accused;
b. to the dismissal of the case because of the prosecution’s
failure to prosecute; or
c. to the dismissal thereof on the ground of unreasonable
delay in the proceedings in violation of the right of the
accused to speedy trial.
o 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.
o In Paulin v. Judge Gimenez, the dismissal of an actionon
procedural grounds, not being an acquittal, does not give rise
to double jeopardy.
o Consent of the accused to the dismissal cannot be implied or
presumed; it must be expressed as to have no doubt as to the
accused’s conformity.
o In People v. City Court of Silay, 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.
o Where the denial of the demurrer to evidence is appealed to
the Court of Appeals and the latter orders the dismissal of the
criminal case, the dismissal is a decision on the merits of the
case which amounts to an acquittal of the accused.
o In Esmena v. Pogoy, where the motion to dismiss made at the
instance of the accused, although invoking the right to speedy
trial, was ruled not to have given rise to double jeopardy —
because the postponement sought did not constitute
unreasonable delay.
o Revival of the criminal cases provisionally dismissed. 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.
o Appeal by prosecution. An appeal by the prosecution from a
judgment of acquittal, or for the purpose of increasing the
penalty imposed upon the convict would place the latter in
double jeopardy. Double jeopardy provides three related
protections:
1. Against a second prosecution for the same offense after
acquittal;
2. Against a second prosecution for the same offense after
conviction; and
3. Against multiple punishments for the same offense.
o Discharge of co-accused. 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,
2
DOUBLE JEOPARDY - MAD
absent satisfactory proof that he had refused or failed to testify
against his co-accused.
Crimes Covered
 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.
Second Sentence of Sec. 21, Art. III
 In People v. Relova, in the case at bar, it was very evident that the
charges filed against Mr. Opulencia will fall on the 2nd kind or
definition of double jeopardy wherein it contemplates double jeopardy
of punishment for the same act. It further explains that even if the
offenses charged are not the same, owing that the first charge
constitutes a violation of an ordinance and the second charge was a
violation against the revised penal code, the fact that the two charges
sprung from one and the same act of conviction or acquittal under
either the law or the ordinance shall bar a prosecution under the other
thus making it against the logic of double jeopardy.
What is the Doctrine of Supervening Event?
 It allows the prosecution of another offense if 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.
Additional Notes:
Q: X was charged with a criminal case in the court. He was arraigned and he
pleaded not guilty. Later the prosecution moved to dismiss the case. The counsel
for the accused wrote “No Objection” at the bottom of the prosecutor’s motion.
The court granted the motion and dismissed the case against X. A year after, X
was later charged for the same case. May X invoke the right against double
jeopardy?
A: No. The act of the X’s counsel in writing “No Objection” constituted an express
consent to the termination within the meaning of Sec. 9 of Rule 117 Rules of
Court. He could not thereafter revoke that conformity since the court had
already acted upon it by dismissing the case. X was bound by his counsel’s
consent to the dismissal. (People v. Pilpa, G.R. No. L‐30250, Sept. 22, 1977)
Q: Two policemen were charged before the Sandiganbayan for the death of two
men. However, the prosecution was ordered to amend the information and the
accused were arraigned anew and consequestly convicted. Were they placed in
double jeopardy?
A: No. The first requirement for jeopardy to attach – that the Informations were
valid – has not been complied with. (Herrera v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
119660‐61, Feb. 13, 2009)
Q: If the first case was dismissed due to insufficiency of evidence without giving
the prosecution the opportunity to present its evidence, has jeopardy attached?
A: The first jeopardy has not yet attached. There is no question that four of the
five elements of legal jeopardy are present. However, the last element – valid
conviction, acquittal, dismissal or termination of the case – is wanting since the
right to due process was violated. (People v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 168918, Mar. 2,
2009)
3