Wednesday, May 12, 2021

Nicefel Villomo ...15/20

 


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:

Based on the case provided, No. He is not correct in his contention because the charges for two offenses are different from each other. In his case these are his offenses which he violated (1) for carrying a firearm during an election gun ban (2) for carrying a firearm without a license under R. A. 10591. Wherein in this case under the law the first offense he committed is under the revised penal code while the other one is a special law. Therefor there can be no double jeopardy because they are different crimes committed.....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.

 

 

Answer:

In the case at bar, No. I will not grant her motion for dismissal. Since Bp 22 is under the special law while Estafa is a violation under the revised penal code. Therefor the can be no double jeopardy in this case wherein under the law double jeopardy can only be a defense by a person if they are the same offense committed. If there is an express consent there is no 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:

In the case at bar, Yes. there is already a double jeopardy. Under the law these two crimes committed are the same offenses wherein he put a jumper on his electrical connection which is illegal and a crime punishable by law. It is also now consummated theft in this case. Therefore they are now the same offenses which constitute double jeopardy...0

 

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:

In this case, No. Mario was caught with by cutting trees without permit which is theft and they are not the same offenses committed. Cutting trees without permit is different offense from illegal cutting of coconut trees. Under the law only those the same offenses can constitute double jeopardy. Wherein in this case the are separate case to be filed since they are not the same crime committed. No person can be put twice in jeopardy for the same act as punishable by law....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:

Based on the jurisprudence provided, Yes I will dismiss the case. Since the accused was arraigned and pleaded not guilty as charge in his first offense. Luis Santos also filed a motion to dismiss the case. Considering that it was dismissed previously by the Hon. Prosecutor, and the refiling of the same will now already put him in double jeopardy. In this case all the requisites for the fist jeopardy are all present. Under the law there must be valid complaint or information, it must be file in the court of competent jurisdiction wherein there is an arraignment, he also plead not guilty and the last requisites is that the defendant’s case is already dimissed. Therefor he can now claim for double jeopady in his defense....0

END OF THE QUIZ

 

No comments:

IN THE MATTER OF THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE COLUMNS OF MR. AMADO P. MACASAET PUBLISHED IN MALAYA DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 19, 20 AND 21, 2007. D E C I S I O N

  Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC             August 8, 2008 IN THE MATTER OF THE ALLEGATIONS ...