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: Yes, Cruz iscorrect
with his contention that the 2nd case should be dismissed since it
is double jeopardy.....0
Under the law, any person who possess unlicensed
firearm shall be punished by the law if there was no other crime committed. In
the case at bar, the crime was committed in violation to COMELEC Gun Ban so the
case of illegal possession of firearm can only be used as an aggravating
circumstance to the 1st case but not as a separate case.
This
is the same with the Agote doctrine.
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:
I will not grant her motion for
dismissal on the 2nd case as it is not double jeopardy.
In the case at bar, the filing
of two sets of cases against Acas under BP 22 and under RPC does not constitute
double jeopardy. Although they have the same or identical facts done by the
same person, Acas, but according to the law of double jeopardy, prosecution for
the same offense is not prohibited but what is not allowed is prosecuting for
the same mistake.
In the case at bar, there were
2 identical facts but there are 2 offenses, hence the filing of 2 separate
cases can prosper without double jeopardy....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, Santos is correct.
Under the law, no person shall be charged twice for the same offense. In the
case at bar, he violated the municipal ordinance and he can use this to plea to
file a motion to quash the second case of theft under the RPC.
This is the same of the Relova
case, where there were two identical offenses filed separately under violation
of the ordinance and against the RPC.
Although Relova was acquitted
on the 1st case due to prescription, he is also not liable for the 2nd
case filed under RPC as it is against the ground of 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.
Answer: Yes, the two charges
will push through as it will not violate her constitutional right against
jeopardy.
Same contention, explanation
and application of law in number 2.
Cruz can be prosecuted for the
same offense but different cases. 1st violation is under a special
law of PCA and he next is theft under RPC, but double jeopardy is not
applicable....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: No, Luis Santos’
contention is not correct that the refiling of the same case will put him in
jeopardy.
In the case at bar, double
jeopardy does not apply as the requisites are not met. The essential elements
of double jeopardy are:
1. There must be a valid complaint
2. It must be filed in a correct
court of jurisdiction
3. The accused has pleaded on the
charge
4. The accused has been convicted
/ acquitted or the case has been dismissed or it has been withdrawn without the
consent of the accused
In the case at bar, it was the
complaint before the Prosecutor was dismissed during the preliminary
investigation and was dismissed the due to the absence of the witnesses, and
its not the trial court. On this stage, there was no valid complaint that can
be be brought to proper court and the dismissal of the case by the Prosecutor
is not considered as acquittal. So, there was no first jeopardy to start with
and so the refiling of the case is not a violation of his constitutional right.
So the refiling of the case can prosper without double jeopardy...5
END
OF THE QUIZ
No comments:
Post a Comment