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.
Ans. No. He is not correct in his
contention. In the case at bar, there is no double jeopardy manifested. The
first offense is in violation of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code which
is a substantial law and other offense arose from the violation of R.A. 10591
which is a special law. Thus, both are laws and cannot jeopardize the accused. For
double jeopardy to be invoked, there is termination of an offense with regards
to violation of a special law with subsequent filing of a complaint or
information of an another offense (e.g. violation of an ordinance). ....4
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.
Ans. No. Her motion cannot be
granted. Double jeopardy cannot be invoked in the case at bar because both
offenses are in violation of both laws. BP 22 is a special law and Estafa is a
criminal offense in violation of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, both offenses
arose from the same crime and cannot be a double jeopardy. Thus, her motion for
reconsideration is not met in the case at bar.The Constitution provides that no
person cannot be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense as punishment of
the same act....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.
Ans. Yes. There is double jeopardy in
the case at bar. The Constitution provides that no person cannot be put twice
in jeopardy for the same offense as punishment of the same act and same offense.
One arose in violation of Dipolog ordinance and the other one arose in
violation of the Revised Penal Code. This provides an evidence that both
offenses are independent from each other and will jeopardize the accused. For
double jeopardy to be invoked, there is termination of an offense with regards
to violation of a special law with subsequent filing of a complaint or
information of a different offense (e.g. violation of an ordinance). Thus, this is met in the case at bar. ....3
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.
Ans. No. There is no double jeopardy
in this. Both offenses are in violation of the lawthus, he cannot invoke double
jeopardy. In the case at bar, Mario was charged with theft and illegal cutting
of coconut trees. Hence, there is different offenses. The Constitution provides
that no person cannot be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense as
punishment of the same act. Thus, there double jeopardy cannot be invoked in
the case at bar. ...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.
Ans. Yes. If I were the judge, I will dismiss the case against him. This
is already in double jeopardy. The fact that the case was already dismissed on
the ground that the witnesses did not appear during the time of prosecution.
The dismissal of the same case would suffice that the accused cannot be filed
with another case of murder. The following requisites for double jeopardy must
concur:
1.
There is a valid complaint or
information
2.
It is filed before the competent
court
3.
There is a valid plea
4.
There is termination of the case
Hence, the requisites are met in the case at bar. Furthermore, the law so
provides that that no person cannot be
put twice in jeopardy for the same offense as punishment of the same act.....0
END OF THE QUIZ
No comments:
Post a Comment