Wednesday, May 12, 2021

CHERRY MAE BAES PANCHO 10/25

 

QUIZ ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY

May 12, 2021

Instruction. Answer the question briefly and concisely. Always explain your answer with legal justification.

 

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.

Answer: 0

Yes, Jose Cruz's contention is correct because he was charged with the two offenses which are unlicensed firearms. It is double jeopardy under Sec 21, Article III of the 1987 Constitution stated if he or she is put in double jeopardy with the same offense. It is punishable by law constitute of the same act. In the case of Jose Cruz there are two types of double jeopardy; First, the prosecution for the same offense; Lastly, the prosecution of the same act.

2.      NelinaAcas 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.

Answer. 5 points

Yes, I will grant Nelina’s request of motion to dismiss because in the requisite for first jeopardy stated; First, there must be information or a formal charge to sustain a conviction; Second, the complaint must be filed before a court; Third, the accused has been pleaded to the charges; Lastly, the accused have been convicted in the case against him was dismissed or terminated without his express consent.  There is no double jeopardy because the information is filed charging the same accused with the two different offenses have different elements.

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.

The case of Juan Santos is not the same offense because illegal jumper and theft are different. There is no double jeopardy in the case because a crime is not a case in a bar to the prosecution under the Revised Penal Code, and it is considered as mala prohibitum while the other is malum in se.

 

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.

 

 score: 5 points

No, the case of Mario Cruz is not double jeopardy because cutting of coconut trees and theft is not the same offense and it is a different crime. In the case of Mario Cruz, there is no double jeopardy because a crime is not a case in a bar to the prosecution under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and it is considered as mala prohibitum while the other is malum in se.

 

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.

 

 

Answer:

No, it is double jeopardy because the case of Luis Santos of murder is not the same offense that was charged. As a judge of the case of Luis Santos, I will dismiss the case because the information is charging the same accused with a different offense from the act is not the same element.

 

END OF THE QUIZ

No comments:

IN THE MATTER OF THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE COLUMNS OF MR. AMADO P. MACASAET PUBLISHED IN MALAYA DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 19, 20 AND 21, 2007. D E C I S I O N

  Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC             August 8, 2008 IN THE MATTER OF THE ALLEGATIONS ...