AUDEY PRINCIPE...20/25

 

1. No. By definition, double jeopardy is when a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminated wither by acquittal or conviction or in any other matter without the consent of the accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense. Under the Constitution, an accused can be charged with two offenses arising from the same act without the violation of his right against double jeopardy, giving an instance, that one of the offense is charged under the revised penal code and the other one is under the special law. In this case, Jose Cruz is incorrect in his contention because both charges against him was under the election gun ban which is under a special law, while the other is under the RA 10591 which is a comprehensive statute on Firearm and Ammunition Regulation Act of the Revised Penal Code....5

 

2. No. Under the Constitution, an accused can be charged with two offenses arising from the same act without the violation of his right against double jeopardy, giving an instance, that both charges are different offenses as these two offenses imposes specific and different penalties under different statutes. In this case, NelinaAcas undoubtedly issued a bounced check which lead in her being charged with estafa and BP 22. Both charges against him are of different offenses, as the estafa case imposes different and specific penalties from BP 22. Moreover, both charges arise from different statutes. Thus, the motion to dismiss will not be granted....5

 

3. Under the jurisprudence, a person cannot be held liable for the charges imposed against him under an ordinance and under the Revised Penal Code, simultaneously. In this case, since Juan Santos violated both the Dipolog City Ordinance and the RPC in illegally putting an electrical jumper, he shall only be held liable to either one of the laws, and not both laws. ...5

 

4. Yes. The requisites of double jeopardy are; a valid complaint, decided in a competent court, defendant pleaded, acquitted or convicted or the case against him was dismissed without an express consent and the second offense is the same with the first. In this case, both charges against Mario Cruz are still for arraignment, thus all requisites are lacking. In addition, the charges against him under PCA as a special law is different from theft which is under the RPC because both of them have different and specific penalties and they are of different statutes....5

 

5. It depends. The fourth requisite of double jeopardy which states that, “a case against him was dismissed without the accused express consent” must be proven. If indeed the competent court dismisses the case of murder against the accused on the ground that the prosecution is lacking of interest and for Luis Santos to have and speedy disposition of cases, the violation of double jeopardy against the accused for murder case is now in question. However, if the prosecution proved that the competent court used error in judgment, then the previous acquittal of Santos’ murder case shall be annulled and the new one will prevail, thus no violation of double jeopardy will be violated....0