1. Jose Cruz
was caught carrying an unlicensed firearm in one of the checkpoints established
in Sergio Osmena, while he was riding his car going to Dipolog. He was frisked
and the firearm on his waistline was confiscated after he was made to disembark
from his car. He was then charged for two offenses: (1) for carrying a firearm
during an election gun ban (2) for carrying a firearm without a license under
R. A. 10591. He was arraigned on both charges, and after that he filed a motion
to dismiss the charge under R.A. 10591 as it is a violation of his right
against double jeopardy. Decide, whether he is correct in his contention.
Explain.
No. Cruz contention
was wrong. Double Jeopardy refers to jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense. In order that protection against double jeopardy will be obtain these
following requisites must concur:
1)
A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second;
2)
The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
3)
The second jeopardy must be for the same offense or the second offense
includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first
information, or is an attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof.
In this case, none
of the following requisites was present.
The two jeopardy being charged against the accused was filed at the same
time. Neither of the two offenses were validly
terminated of a different time as the both are still pending. Lastly,
the two offenses being charged was not of the same offense. Therefore, the Cruz
was wrong on his claim that his right against double jeopardy was violated....5
2. Nelina Acas
obtained 20 sacks of rice from the store of Juan Casis. She issued a PNB check
for the sum of 40,000 pesos as payment of said rice. Eventually, the check
bounced for insufficiency of funds. Juan Casis filed two cases against her: First for violating BP 22 and
then another one for Estafa under the Revised Penal Code. She was
arraigned on both charges, trial proceeded. She was acquitted for the Estafa charge for
insufficiency of evidence. Meanwhile the trial for BP 22 continued, and while the trial was
going on, she filed a motion to dismiss for the reason that her acquittal in
the Estafa case for the same checks which she issued, already put her on the
first jeopardy and to try
her for BP 22 would necessarily put her in double jeopardy. Decide whether
you grant her motion to dismiss or not.
Anna’s contention
was not correct. In order that double jeopardy may be availed the following
requisites must be present:
1)
A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second;
2)
The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
3)
The second jeopardy must be for the same offense or the second offense
includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first
information, or is an attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof.
Moreover, in order
that the first jeopardy is said to have been validly attached, the following
elements must concur:
1.
There must be a valid complaint or information in form and substance to
sustain a conviction of the crime charged;
2.
It must be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction;
3.
The accused has been arraigned and had pleaded; and
4.
The accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed without
his expressed consent.
In this
case, though the first jeopardy was validly attached prior to the second
offense, this was, however, not the same offense as the second offense. The
first Jeopardy is a violation which is punishable under the RPC or is a mala in
se while the second jeopardy is punishable under the special penal law or is a
mala prohibita. Since that the two offenses charged are imposes specific and
different penalties under a different statutes, therefore, anna cannot her
right against double jeopardy......5
3. Juan Santos
put a jumper on his electrical connection to save on electricity. When this was
discovered by ZANECO, a
case for Violating Dipolog Ordinance (for illegal jumpers) and another one for
THEFT of electricity under the REVISED Penal CODE were filed against him. He said that
this cannot be, since there is already a double jeopardy. Decide.
Juan Santos can
claim his right against double jeopardy. Under Sec. 21 of the 1987 Constitution
provides that:
Section 21. 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.
The second sentence
of the above provision is applicable to this case. In the sentence it is clear
that double jeopardy can be claim if the charged is of the same act though it
is punishable under a law and an ordinance.
Since the two charges against Santos are of the same act therefore,
Santos can claim that this would be a violation of his right against double
jeopardy....4
4. Mario Cruz
was caught by the police officers cutting coconut trees without permit from the
PCA. It was also learned that he is not the owner of these coconut trees as
they are owned by Maria Sy. Maria Sy filed a complaint for theft of coconut trees against
him. The PCA also filed a
case for illegal cutting of coconut trees (without PCA permit). Will the
two charges push through without violating her rights against double jeopardy?
Explain.
The charges against
him is not a violation of his right against double jeopardy. In order that
double jeopardy may be availed the following requisites must be present:
1.
A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second;
2.
The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
3.
The second jeopardy must be for the same offense or the second offense
includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first
information, or is an attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof.
In this case, none
of the following requisites was present.
The two offenses charged against Maria are both filed of the same time
so there is no prior jeopardy that was validly attached. Neither of the two
offenses were validly terminated as the both are still pending. Lastly, the two
offenses being charged was not of the same offense since that the theft is
covered under the RPC while illegal cutting of coconut trees is a violation
under the special penal laws. Therefore, Maria’s right against double jeopardy
was not violated.....5
5. Luis Santos
is accused of murder by the police officers. The case was filed at the
Prosecutor’s office which conducted
the preliminary investigation. As the witnesses did not appear, the honorable prosecutor
dismissed the case. After two months the witnesses appeared before the
prosecutor, and after conducting the investigation, a probable cause was found
against Luis Santos. Eventually, a case for murder was filed before the Regional Trial Court in Dipolog
City. The accused was arraigned and pleaded not guilty as charge. After
that Luis Santos filed a motion to dismiss the case, considering that it was
dismissed previously by the Hon. Prosecutor, and the refiling of the same
already put him in double jeopardy. Is he correct? As judge will you dismiss
the case against him? Explain your answer.
No. If I were the
judge I will not dismiss the case. In order that double jeopardy may be availed
the following requisites must be present:
1.
A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second;
2.
The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
3.
The second jeopardy must be for the same offense or the second offense
includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first
information, or is an attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof.
Moreover, in order
that the first jeopardy is said to have been validly attached, the following
elements must concur:
1)
There must be a valid complaint or information in form and substance to
sustain a conviction of the crime charged;
2)
It must be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction;
3)
The accused has been arraigned and had pleaded; and
4)
The accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed without
his expressed consent.
In this case, the
first jeopardy was not validly attached since that it lacks of the 2nd
and 3rd requisites. The first jeopardy against santos was terminated
during the conduct of the preliminary investigation, so this would mean that it
was not filed in a court of competent jurisdiction nor does he was arraigned
and pleaded of the charged against him. Since these had lack requisites for a
first jeopardy to be validly attached prior to the second charged, therefore,
it is not proper to dismiss the case on the ground of double jeopardy....5
No comments:
Post a Comment