Wednesday, May 12, 2021

VANESSA MAWILI....14/25

 

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:

            He is not correct. The second form of double jeopardy provides, “if an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act”. To violate right against double jeopardy, the act must be punished by a law and an ordinance. In the case at bar, the gun ban and R.A. 10591 are both laws. Thus, there is no violation of right against double jeopardy and the case would prosper....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.

 

 

 

 

ANSWER:

            Motion should be granted. As a rule, double jeopardy is not available when the case is dismissed other than by acquittal or conviction upon motion of the accused. the law though provides for exceptions, one of those is dismissal based on insufficiency of evidence.

In this case, the first case was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, and as the law provides right against double jeopardy may be instituted.

           

 

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:

            No, he is not correct. There is no double jeopardy yet. For double jeopardy to be instituted, the following requisites has to be present: (1)there is a valid complaint or information filed; (2) filed before a competent court; (3) the accused has been arraigned and had pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted or was dismissed w/o his consent.

In this case, only two requisites are present and those are  valid information filed before a competent court. There is no double jeopardy because the accuse is not yet convicted or acquitted....5

 

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, two charges will push through. The Constitution provides, “if an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act”. To violate right against double jeopardy, the act must be punished by a law and an ordinance.

In the case at bar, the illegal cutting of trees and theft under the RPC are both laws. Thus, there is no violation of right against double jeopardy and the case would prosper....4

 

 

 

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, he is not correct. If I were the judge I will dismiss the case against him on the ground that there has been deprivation of due process and mistrial.

            As a rule, a judgment of acquittal is final, unappealable and immediately executory. However, the rule on double jeopardy has exceptions. One of them is, where there has been deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of mistrial.

            In the present case, the case was dismissed because the witnesses did not appear. There is a clear showing that there has been a deprivation of due process thus, right against double jeopardy is not violated....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 ...