DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Article 2, SECTION 21- Philippines Constitution

----- Attachment of jeopardy -----

People v. Ylagan

– physical injuries –

A defendant is in legal jeopardy when he was put to trial in the following conditions:
a. in a court of competent jurisdiction
b. upon a valid complaint or information
c. after he has been arraigned
d. after he has pleaded to the information

“without the consent of the accused” –
does not mean “over the objection of the accused” or “against the will of the accused” ; mere silence or failure to object

People v. Balisacan

– homicide –
Existence of a plea is an essential requisite in order that the accused may be in jeopardy. In this case, he first entered a plea of guilty and subsequently, he was ed to testify on the mitigating circumstances and he said he acted in self defense: this had the effect of vacating his plea of guilty;
court should have required a new plea.

Cudia v. CA

– requisites in order to successfully invoke the defense of double jeopardy/ substantiate an claim of
jeopardy –

a. a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second
b. first jeopardy must have been validly terminated
c. second jeopardy must be for the same offense or the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information, or is an attempt to commit of frustration thereof. Jeopardy does not attach where a defendant pleads guilty to a defective indictment that is voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution

----- Termination of jeopardy -----

1. Bustamante v. Maceren

– reopening of a case –

No re-opening of a case may be ordered of a criminal case after accused has
started serving his sentence; a judgment in a criminal case becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served or the defendant ha waived in writing his appeal; withdrawal of plea of guilty does not constitute waiver of defense of double jeopardy timely invoked.

People v. Obsania

– rape –

In order that the protection against double jeopardy may inure in favor of an accused, the following
requisites must have obtained in the original prosecution/ double jeopardy attaches when:
a. a valid complaint or information
b. a competent court
c. defendant had pleaded to the charge
d. defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his consent dismissal with express consent of the defendant constitutes waiver

Rivera v. People

– transportation of marijuana –

VERBAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL which was not reduced into writing may be set aside by the judge and enter a new one duly signed by him, reinstating the case

Cuison v. CA

– double homicide –

The promulgation of only one part of the decision i.e. liability for civil indemnity, is NOT A BAR, to the subsequent promulgation of the other part, the imposition of the criminal accountability – doctrine on double jeopardy same as in Cudia and Obsania cases.

People v. Velasco

– homicide and frustrated homicide – Requisites to successfully invoke double jeopardy (refer to Obsania); Where an acquittal is concerned, the rules do not distinguish whether it occurs at the level of the trial court or an appeal on a judgment of conviction. This firmly establishes the finality-of-acquittal rule; An acquittal is final and unappealable ON THE GROUND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY whether it happens at the trial court of before the Court of Appeals; doctrine that double jeopardy may not be invoked after trial may apply only when the Court finds that the criminal trial was a sham because the prosecution
representing the sovereign people in the criminal case was denied due process.

Salcedo v. Mendoza

– homicide through reckless imprudence –

General rule: dismissal of criminal case upon motion or with express consent of accused will not be
a bar to the subsequent prosecution of the accused for the same offense. EXCEPTION TO THE RULE: when dismissal is grounded upon the right of the accused to a speedy trial. This amounts to a judgment of acquittal on the merits which bars the subsequent prosecution of accused for the same offense

Oriente v. People

– homicide; lead pipe –

It is well settled that when an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy; Courts have the inherent power to amend their decisions to make them conformable to law and justice; change in penalty by the RTC did not involve
the consideration of new evidence but a mere “correction”

People v. Cajigal

– homicide to murder –

The change of the offense charged from homicide to murder is merely a formal amendment and not a substantial amendment or a substitution;

----- Same offense; ordinance and states -----

People v. Relova –

theft of electricity; punishable by an ordinance and the RPC – 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,
is on identity of offenses charged. In contrast, where an offense is penalized by an ordinance and a statute, the inquiry is on the identity of acts; Identity of offenses (examining elements of the two offenses); identity of acts (examining the locus or such acts in time and place); For double jeopardy
to be available, not all technical elements of the first offense need be present in the definition of the second offense; Damages, civil liability – will continue to be heard

People v. City Court of Manila

– the defense of double jeopardy cannot prosper when there is no identity of the offenses charged. Evidence required to prove one offense is not the same evidence required to prove the other; An appeal by the prosecution from the order of dismissal by the trial court SHALL NOT constitute double
jeopardy if:
a. the dismissal is made upon motion or with express consent of the defendant;
b. dismissal is NOT an acquittal or based upon consideration of the evidence or of the merits of the case;
c. question to be passed upon the appellate court is purely legal (if dismissal is incorrect, case will be remanded to the court of origin)

----- Rule on supervening facts –

Melo v. People

– physical injuries; injured party dies; homicide – The rule of identity does not apply when the
second offense was not in existence at the time of the first prosecution, for the simple reason that in such case, there is no possibility for the accused, during the first prosecution, to be convicted for an offense that was then inexistent. Thus, where the accused was charged with physical injuries and after conviction, the injured person dies, the charged for homicide against the same accused does not put him twice in jeopardy.

People v. Buling

– [less] serious physical injuries; X-ray; two physicians; two complaints -

The prosecution of the accused for less serious physical injuries is a bar for his prosecution with serious physical injuries. If the X-ray examination disclosed the existence of a fracture when the second examination was made, this must have been present during the first examination; There was therefore no supervening fact which would justify application of the rule of double jeopardy.