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:
No, he is not correct. Under the law, no person shall put twice in jeopardy as
a punishment of the same offense, and if the act is punished by law and an
ordinance, the conviction or acquittal shall constitute a bar into another
prosecution for the same act. With that being said, a person cannot be charged
of the same offense and the same act. In the case at bar, Jose Cruz was charged
of two offenses for carrying a firearm. His contention that it is a violation
of his rights against double jeopardy is not correct. The crimes charged of him
are two different offenses where the Election Gun ban is a law and the Republic
Act 10591 is a special law which prohibits the carrying of an unlicensed
firearm. Therefore, Jose Cruz’s contention is not correct....5
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:
No, the motion of NelinaAcas will not be granted. Under the law, no person
shall put twice in jeopardy as a punishment of the same offense, and if the act
is punished by law and an ordinance, the conviction or acquittal shall
constitute a bar into another prosecution for the same act. The law prescribes
that a person cannot be charged of the same offense and the same act. In this
particular case, Acas was charged of violation on BP 22 and Estafa under the
revised penal code. Both of the charges alleged were different offenses whereas
the BP 22 is a special law and the Estafa case under the revised penal code is
a substantive law. In her contention that since she was already acquitted of
the case of Estafa it will not become deouble jeopardy if she will be charged
of the violation of BP 22, which is not correct since offenses are diffent. The
requisites for the double jeopardy as follows: 1)there is a valid complaint or
information filed; 2)the complaint was filed in a competent court; 3) the
defendant had pleaded on the case; and 4) there is a termination of the case
either the accused was acquitted or convicted and the case was dismissed. It
will not apply since there was no first jeopardy in the first place since the
violation on BP 22 is different from the Estafa case....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.
ANSWER:
Yes, there is a double jeopardy. Under the law, no person shall put twice in
jeopardy as a punishment of the same offense, and if the act is punished by law
and an ordinance, the conviction or acquittal shall constitute a bar into
another prosecution for the same act. The law suggest that a person cannot be
charged of the same act and same offenses. In this case, Santos was charges of
two crimes which are the same act. His crime on theft under the revised penal
code is similar to his crime of violation on Dipolog Ordinance for illegal
jumpers, which already constitute theft. The law prescribes that a person
cannot be charged of the same act, therefore Santos cannot he charged of both
crimes since it will become a double jeopardy....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.
ANSWER:
Yes, it will not violate his rights against double jeopardy. Under the law, no
person shall put twice in jeopardy as a punishment of the same offense, and if
the act is punished by law and an ordinance, the conviction or acquittal shall
constitute a bar into another prosecution for the same act. In this case, Mario
was charged of theft of coconut trees and illegal cutting without permit, which
are separate offenses under the law. Therefore, it will not violate his rights
against double jeopardy....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.
ANSWER:
Yes, he is correct. Under the law, there are requisites for the first jeopardy are
as follows: 1) there is a valid complaint or information filed; 2) the
complaint was filed in a competent court; 3) the defendant had pleaded on the
case; and 4) there is a termination of the case either the accused was
acquitted or convicted and the case was dismissed. In this case, it will be
dismissed since the requisites of the first jeopardy was followed and the first
case was already dismissed. Filing of another crime that of the same offense
will render it double jeopardy since the first case was already dismissed.
Therefore, the second case filed for murder will be dismissed on the ground of
double jeopardy....0
END OF THE QUIZ
No comments:
Post a Comment