MARIE BETH D. REVILLA
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:No, Although the cases both focuses
on gun carrying the cases filed against him are two separate offenses one is a
special law and one is a penal law offense therefore he cannot constitute and
dismiss the other. 5 points
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, I would not grant her a motion to dismiss because both cases of estafa and bp22 may root from similar set of fact they still present different causes of action, under the law both are considered separate and distinctly independent from each other, A BP 22 case involving the Nelina’s criminal and civil liability cannot be used to influence the criminal and civil aspects of a similar estafa case. 4 points
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, according to the charges filed
against him Theft and Illegal jumping both root from “theft” stating illegal
jumping means the stealing of electricity, it would be redundant to file two
theft cases against him therefore there is a double jeopardy in this case. 0 point
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:No there is no double jeopardy in
this case, the two cases filed against him are two different offenses, one for
theft and one for the illegal cutting of coconut trees both focus of the same
matter but both have different principles. correct: 5 points
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, under
the law a Legal jeopardy
is valid first when there is a valid indictment second where it is filed
Before a competent court, third when the participants went through after an
arraignment, and lastly the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without
the express consent of the accused, in the case of Luis Santos all of the steps
were already taken and the court already rendered a decision and he was pleaded
as not guilty therefore filing the case again would rise to double jeopardy. wrong: 0 point
END OF THE QUIZ
No comments:
Post a Comment