PANGO, ROSE MAE L.
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.
There is double jeopardy in
this case, Section 28 of Republic Act No. 10591, also known as the.
Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act, prohibits. the unlawful
acquisition or possession of ammunition and penalizes the offense with a
minimum prison term of six (6) to twelve (12) years.
While the election gun ban is of different offenses during election
period.The following requisites are necessary in
order to constitutes double jeopardy (1) the first jeopardy must have attached
prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated;
and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.
The second offense is of different elements and so
it does not constitutes double jeopardy.....5
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.
The motion to dismiss is barred since the two offenses is
of different requisites.
For it to constitute double jeopardy following requisites must concur: (1) the first jeopardy
must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been
validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as
that in the first.The test for the third element is whether one offense is
identical or the same with the other or
is an attempt to commit it or a frustration thereof; or whether one offense
necessarily includes, as provided in Section 7 of Rule 117 of the Rules of
Court.Section 5 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court further provides: SECTION 5.
When an offense includes or is included in another. An offense charged
necessarily includes that which is proved, when some of the essential elements
or ingredients of the former constitute the latter.
BP 22 is a special penal Law while Estafa is a
crime punishable under RPC which has of different requisites....5
3. 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.
Violation
on Dipolog City Ordinance is an ordinance and is a Special Law or Regulations
while a THEFT is a crime punishable by RPC, both have different requisites and
does not constitutes double jeopardy. The elements of double jeopardy was not
satisfied. It does not violate the
rule on Section 21, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution....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,
both are of different crimes and thus punishable under Special Laws and RPC and
does not violates her rights against double jeopardy.It does not violate the rule on Section 21, Article III of
the 1987 Philippine Constitution
states that, “No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by law or an
ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution for the same act.”...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.
Yes,
he is correct since the elements of the double jeopardy satisfies the case.
For it to
constitute double jeopardy following requisites must concur: (1) the first
jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must
have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same
offense as that in the first. The test for the third element is whether one
offense is identical or the same with
the other or is an attempt to commit it or a frustration thereof; or whether
one offense necessarily includes, as provided in Section 7 of Rule 117 of the
Rules of Court.9 Section 5 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court further provides:
SECTION 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. An offense
charged necessarily includes that which is proved, when some of the essential
elements or ingredients of the former constitute the latter.
In order that first
jeopardy must be validly attached the following elements are present: (1) a
valid complaint or information; (2) a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the
defendant had pleaded to the charge; and (4) the defendant was acquitted or
convicted, or the case against him was dismissed .
The
case against him was already dismissed and putting him again under trial
constitutes double jeopardy....0
No comments:
Post a Comment