MARIETTA RAEL....19./20

 

 

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:

           

Jose Cruz is not correct on his contention.

 

Under the law, there can be only double jeopardy when a person was charged with an offense and the case was terminated by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without his consent, he cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense.

 

In the instant case given, Jose Cruz was then charged for two different offenses: (1) for carrying a firearm during an election gun ban (2) for carrying a firearm without a license under R. A. 10591.

The law is clear that there is no double jeopardy in the case given as both offenses are not the same offense. Therefore, Jose Cruz cannot be charge of double jeopardy....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.

If I were the Judge in this case, I will not grant her motion to dismiss.

 Under the law, while a BP 22 case and estafa are most like and are considered as separate, distinct and independent from each other.

Hence, it cannot be considered as a case of double jeopardy for the second offense is not the same as the first offense.....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.

Esential requisites of double jeopardy are not present in this case.

Under the law, there must be a valid complaint or information and must be filed before a competent court to which defendant has pleaded, and defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

In the instant case, Juan Santos was charge on violating the City Ordinance and Theft of electricity under the Revised penal Code. There are two different offenses therefore it cannot be considered as 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.

Yes it will push through without violating Mario’s rights against double jeopardy as the two offenses are separate and independent.

Under the law, valid defense of doubly jeopardy are as follows: First jeopardy must have attached prior to the second.(2) The first jeopardy must have terminated.

(3) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.

 

                In this case, the law is clear that Mario violates two different offenses...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, Luis Santos is right on his contention.

Under the the fourth requisite of double jeopardy, that  defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

 

In the instant case given, Luis Santos was dismissed by the Hon. Prosecutor as there were no witnesses appear or visible in the said case,and it was dismissed without the defendant’s express consent.

 

As the Judge, yes I will dismiss the case as it violates his rights under double jeopardy....0

 

END OF THE QUIZ