Mary Choleene M. Bautista 5/25

 

score 5/25

Mary Choleene M. Bautista

 

1.      Yes, Jose Cruz’s contention is correct.  The Philippine Constitution had provided that no person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.  An act that is punished by a law and an ordinance, the acquittal or conviction of the said act will bar another prosecution of the same act.In this case, the act constituted the carrying a firearm without a license under R.A. 10591 are the same acts that also gave rise to the offense for carrying a firearm during gun ban.

 

 

2.      I will grant Nelina Acas’ motion to dismiss.  The Philippine Constitution had provided that no person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.  An act that is punished by a law and an ordinance, the acquittal or conviction of the said act will bar another prosecution of the same act.

 

Also, The Philippine jurisprudence has provided requisites for there be double jeopardy, and these are:

1.      That there must be a valid complaint or information;

2.      That it was filed in a competent court;

3.      That the accused had pleaded; and

4.      That the case was dismissed without the express consent of the accused or that the latter was acquitted or convicted.

 

In this case, Nelina was already acquitted in the case of Estafa for insufficiency of evidence, the acquittal of the said case constitute first jeopardy, for the reason that the elements for jeopardy are present.  Her being tried for the same offense in the BP 22 case, after her acquittal in the Estafa case will constitute double jeopardy and thus, violating her constitutional rights against the same.

 

 

3.      Juan Santos is correct that he cannot be charged for both violations, since there is already double jeopardy.  The Philippine Constitution had provided that no person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.  An act that is punished by a law and an ordinance, the acquittal or conviction of the said act will bar another prosecution of the same act.In this case, the act constituted the theft of electricity under the Revised Penal Code are the same acts that also gave rise to the offense for the violation of the Dipolog Ordinance.

 

4.      Yes, the two charges will push through without violating his right against double jeopardy.  The Philippine Constitution had provided that no person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.  An act that is punished by a law and an ordinance, the acquittal or conviction of the said act will bar another prosecution of the same act.However, in this case, the crime that Mario Cruz had committed are two different offenses for the theft of coconut trees and the illegal cutting of coconut trees without the PCA permit differ in elements.  For there to be the same offenses, the elements of the charges must be the same or alike.

 

 

5.      If the first case was dismissed with the express consent of the accused, then I will not dismiss the case against him.  However, if the first case was dismissed without the express consent of the accused, then I will dismiss the case.

 

The Philippine jurisprudence has provided requisites for there be double jeopardy, and these are:

5.      That there must be a valid complaint or information;

6.      That it was filed in a competent court;

7.      That the accused had pleaded; and

8.      That the case was dismissed without the express consent of the accused or that the latter was acquitted or convicted.

 

In this case, if the accused had expressly gave his consent to the dismissal of the first case, then he already waived his right to double jeopardy and therefore, will be tried again with the same offense.  However, if he had not gave his express consent to the dismissal, then the refilling of the said case will put him in double jeopardy which violates his constitutional right against the same.