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:
No,
because under Section 7, Rule 117 of the Rules
of Court, the first jeopardy attaches only – "(1) upon a valid
indictment, (2) before a competent court, (3) after arraignment, (4) when a
valid plea has been entered, and (5) when the defendant was convicted or
acquitted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express
consent of the accused. Significantly, there are lacking requisites in this
case, therefore it cannot be subjected to double jeopardy....STATE WHAT IS LACKING...NO EXPLANATION...0
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:
Not, BP 22 case and an
estafa case may be rooted from an identical/same set of facts, they
nevertheless present different causes of action, which, under the law, are
considered “separate, distinct, and independent” from each other.Prosecution
for the same act is not prohibited. What is forbidden is prosecution for the
same offense. Hence, the acquittal to Estafa charge and the continuation of
trial for BP 22 does not put her in double jeopardy.
Therefore, both cases can
proceed to their final adjudication both as to their criminal and civil aspects
subject to the prohibition on double recovery. Perforce, a ruling in a BP 22
case concerning the criminal and civil liabilities of the accused cannot be
given any bearing whatsoever in the criminal and civil aspects of a related
estafa case...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:
A person who was charged for
violating a city ordinance which was dismissed for prescription of the offense
may not be charged again under the RPC; claim of double jeopardy is available
even if prior offense charged under an ordinance is different from subsequent
offense charged in a statue where both offenses spring from the same act; where
an offense is punished by different sections of a statute, the inquiry, for the
purpose of double jeopardy.
No less than our
Constitution provides the rule against placing a person under double jeopardy.
As mentioned under Section 21, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution:
“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.”...NO SUFFICIENT EXPLANATION FROM YOU...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:No, because the two
charges against Mario Cruz constitutes different act and different offense and under
Section 7, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, the first jeopardy requisites are
"(1) upon a valid indictment, (2) before a competent court, (3) after
arraignment, (4) when a valid plea has been entered, and (5) when the defendant
was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated
without the express consent of the accused....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.
END
OF THE QUIZ
No comments:
Post a Comment