E.

Double Jeopardy

1. Bangayan Jr. vs. Bangayan, GR No. 172777, 19 October 2011

FACTS

- Sally Go accused her husband Benjamin Bangayan (petitioner) with the crime of bigamy
- Sally Go discovered that her husband was married years ago to a acertain Resally Delfin
using a false name and was married as well to Azucena
- petitioners both pleaded not guilty to the charge against them,
- Benjamin, Jr. and Resally separately filed their respective motions for leave to file a
demurrer to evidence.[9] This was granted by the RTC
- Benjamin, Jr. filed his Demurrer to Evidence, praying that the criminal case for bigamy
against him be dismissed for failure of the prosecution to present sufficient evidence of
his guilt.[11] His plea was anchored on two main arguments: (1) he was not legally
married to Sally Go because of the existence of his prior marriage to Azucena; and (2) the
prosecution was unable to show that he and the Benjamin Z. Sojayco Jr., who married
Resally, were one and the same person
- RTC dismissed the criminal case against Benjamin, Jr. and Resally for insufficiency of
evidence.[14] It reasoned out that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that Benjamin, Jr. used the fictitious name, Benjamin Z. Sojayco Jr., in contracting his
marriage with Resally.[15] Corollarily, Resally cannot be convicted of bigamy because the
prosecution failed to establish that Resally married Benjamin, Jr.
- Aggrieved, Sally Go elevated the case to the CA
- The CA held that the following pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution were
sufficient to deny the demurrer to evidence
- Petitioners motions for reconsideration were both denied by the CA
- Hence, this petition
1. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals in a certiorari
proceedings may inquire into the factual matters presented by
the parties in the lower court, without violating the
constitutional right of herein petitioner (as accused in the lower
court) against double jeopardy as enshrined in Section 21,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
- Sally Go PETITIONER;S CONTENTION:
o , she has an interest in the maintenance of the criminal prosecution against
petitioner The right of offended parties to appeal an order of the trial court
which deprives them of due process has always been recognized, the only
limitation being that they cannot appeal any adverse ruling if to do so
would place the accused in double jeopardy.
ISSUES

petitioners right against double jeopardy was violated by the CA when it reversed the December
3, 2003 RTC Order dismissing the criminal case against them.

RULING

- This Court leans toward Resallys contention that Sally Go had no personality to file the
petition for certiorari before the CA. It has been consistently held that in criminal cases,
the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed
by the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State
- Double jeopardy had already set-in
o Petitioners contend that the December 3, 2003 Order of dismissal issued by
the RTC on the ground of insufficiency of evidence is a judgment of
acquittal. The prosecution is, thus, barred from appealing the RTC Order
because to allow such an appeal would violate petitioners right against
double jeopardy
o On the other hand, Sally Go counters that the petitioners cannot invoke their right
against double jeopardy because the RTC decision acquitting them was issued
with grave abuse of discretion, rendering the same null and void
o Well-established is the rule that the Court cannot review an order granting
the demurrer to evidence and acquitting the accused on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence because to do so will place the accused in double
jeopardy
- The right of the accused against double jeopardy is protected by no less than the Bill of
Rights (Article III) contained in the 1987 Constitution, to wit:

- Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense. 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.

- Double jeopardy attaches if 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 or otherwise terminated without his express consent.[37] However,
jurisprudence allows for certain exceptions when the dismissal is considered final even if
it was made on motion of the accused, to wit:

- (1) Where the dismissal is based on a demurrer to evidence filed by the accused
after the prosecution has rested, which has the effect of a judgment on the merits
and operates as an acquittal.

- (2) Where the dismissal is made, also on motion of the accused, because of the
denial of his right to a speedy trial which is in effect a failure to prosecute.[38]
 o The only instance when the accused can be barred from invoking his right against
double jeopardy is when it can be demonstrated that the trial court acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as
where the prosecution was not allowed the opportunity to make its case against
the accused or where the trial was a sham.[39] For instance, there is no double
jeopardy (1) where the trial court prematurely terminated the presentation of the
prosecution's evidence and forthwith dismissed the information for insufficiency
of evidence;[40] and (2) where the case was dismissed at a time when the case was
not ready for trial and adjudication
- In this case, all four elements of double jeopardy are doubtless present. A valid
information for the crime of bigamy was filed against the petitioners, resulting in the
institution of a criminal case against them before the proper court. They pleaded not
guilty to the charges against them and subsequently, the case was dismissed after the
prosecution had rested its case. Therefore, the CA erred in reversing the trial courts order
dismissing the case against the petitioners because it placed them in double jeopardy.
PETTION GRANTED.
 2. People vs. Velasco, GR No. 127444, 13 September 2000

FACTS

- There was a shooting in San Ildefonso, Bulacan. The shooting claimed the life of Alex
Vinculado and seriously injured his twin brother Levi. Their uncle, Miguel Vinculado, Jr.
was also shot. Three (3) criminal Informations - one (1) for homicide and two (2) for
frustrated homicide were initially filed against Honorato Galvez, Mayor of San Ildefonso,
and Godofredo Diego, the alleged bodyguard of the mayor. However, the charges were
withdrawn and a new set was filed against the same accused upgrading the crimes to
murder and frustrated murder. Mayor Galvez was charged, in addition, with violation of
PD 1866 for unauthorized carrying of firearm outside his residence.
- The trial court found the accused Godofredo Diego guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimes of murder and double frustrated murder. However, it acquitted Mayor Honorato
Galvez of the same charges due to insufficiency of evidence. It also absolved him from
the charge of illegal carrying of firearm upon its finding that the act was not a violation of
law.
- The acquittal of accused Honorato Galvez was challenged by the Government before this
Court in a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Allegedly, in
holding in favor of Galvez, the judge deliberately and wrongfully disregarded certain
facts and evidence on record which, if judiciously considered, would have led to a finding
of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner proposes that this patently
gross judicial indiscretion and arbitrariness should be rectified by a re-examination of the
evidence by the Court upon a determination that a review of the case will not transgress
the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. It is urged that this is necessary
because the judgment of acquittal should be nullified and substituted with a verdict of
guilt.
- Petitioner invokes the constitutional doctrine in the United States that the Double
Jeopardy Clause permits a review of acquittals decreed by US trial magistrates where, as
in this case, no retrial is required should judgment be overturned.Since Philippine
concepts on double jeopardy have been sourced from American constitutional principles,
statutes and jurisprudence, particularly the case of Kepner v. United Statesand because
similarly in this jurisdiction a retrial does not follow in the event an acquittal on appeal is
reversed, double jeopardy should also be allowed to take the same directional course.

ISSUES

- Whether a review by the Supreme Court of a judgment of acquittal in light of the constitutional
interdict against double jeopardy is permissible
HELD/RATIO

NO. It must be explained that under existing American law and jurisprudence, appeals may be
had not only from criminal convictionsbut also, in some limited instances, from dismissals of
criminal charges, sometimes loosely termed "acquittals." But this is so as long as the judgments
of dismissals do not involve determination of evidence. It must involve questions of law or
matters unrelated to a factual resolution of the case which consequently, on appeal, will not
involve a review of evidence.

United States v. Scott positively spelled out that if an acquittal was based on an appreciation of
the evidence adduced, no appeal would lie.In the case at bar, the records show that respondent
trial judge based his finding of acquittal, no matter how erroneous it might seem to petitioner,
upon the evidence presented by both parties. The judgment here was no less than a factual
resolution of the case.

The doctrine that an appeal of a judgment after the defendant had been acquitted by the court in a
bench trial is a new trial, is applicable in this case.

Requisites for invoking double jeopardy:

(a) a valid complaint or information;

(b) before a competent court before which the same is filed;

(c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and,

(d) the defendant was acquitted, or convicted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.

It bears repeating that where acquittal is concerned, the rules do not distinguish whether it occurs
at the level of the trial court or on appeal from a judgment of conviction. This firmly establishes
the finality-of-acquittal rule in our jurisdiction. Therefore, as mandated by our laws and
jurisprudence, an acquittal is final and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy, whether it
happens at the trial court level or before the Court of Appeals.

In general, the rule is that a remand to a trial court of a judgment of acquittal brought before the
Supreme Court on certiorari cannot be had unless there is a finding of mistrial.The 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.The "remand of the criminal case for further hearing and/or
trial before the lower courts amounts merely to a continuation of the first jeopardy, and does not
expose the accused to a second jeopardy

*Sir said: Acquittal must be valid – an error of jurisdiction is the only valid ground for review. If
appeal is based on error of judgment, it will amount to double jeopardy.
 3. People vs. Go, GR No. 191015, 6 August 2014

The power of courts to grant demurrer in criminal cases should be exercised with great caution,
because not only the rights of the accused - but those of the offended party and the public interest
as well - are involved. Once granted, the accused is acquitted and the offended party may be left
with no recourse. Thus, in the resolution of demurrers, judges must act with utmost
circumspection and must engage in intelligent deliberation and reflection, drawing on their
experience, the law and jurisprudence, and delicately evaluating the evidence on hand.

FACTS

-the Monetary Board of the BangkoSentralngPilipinas (BSP) issued a Resolution ordering

the closure of the Orient Commercial Banking Corporation (OCBC) and placing such
bank under the receivership of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC).
- PDIC took all the assets and liabilities of OCBC. PDIC began collecting OCBC’s due
loans by sending demand letters from the borrowers. Among these borrowers are
Timmy’s, Inc. and Asia Textile Mills, Inc. which appeared to have loan in the amount of
10 million each. Both Corporation denied the allegation.
- Because of this, the PDIC conducted an investigation and found out that the loans
purportedly for Timmy’s, Inc. and Asia Textile Mills, Inc. were released in the form of
manager’s check deposited in the account of the private respondents.
- PDIC filed two counts of Estafa thru falsification of Commercial Documents against the
private respondents. Upon arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty. After the presentation
of all of the prosecution’s evidence, the private respondents filed a Motion for Leave to
File Demurrer to Evidence and a Motion for Voluntary Inhibition.
- The presiding judge granted the private respondents’ Motion for Voluntary Inhibition and
ordered the case to be re-raffled to another branch. Respondent Judge grant the Motion
for Leave to File Demurrer of Evidence praying for the dismissal of the criminal cases
instituted against them due to the failure of the prosecution to establish their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution through the Office of the Solicitor General filed a
certiorari before the Court of Appeals but was also denied.
- petitioner claims thatthe July 2, 2007 Order of the trial court granting respondents’
demurrer was null and void to begin with, and thus it could not have attained finality.
- Respondents claim the trial court’s grant of their demurrer to evidence amounts to an
acquittal; any subsequent prosecution for the same offense would thus violate their
constitutional right against double jeopardy
ISSUES

In the Petition, it is alleged that –

THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT RULED

THAT –

(a) NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WAS COMMITTED BY RESPONDENT

RTC JUDGE IN GRANTING THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE;
 (b) THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL HAS ALREADY ATTAINED FINALITY WHEN
IT WAS NOT CHALLENGED IN A TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE MANNER; AND

(c) THE LOWER COURT MERELY COMMITTED ERRORS OF JUDGMENT AND

NOT OF JURISDICTION.20

RULING

- CA grossly erred in affirming the trial court’s Order granting the respondent’s demurrer,
which Order was patently null and void for having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion and manifest irregularity, thus causing substantial injury to the banking
industry and public interest.
- The Court finds that the prosecution has presented competent evidence to sustain the
indictment for the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents, and
that respondents appear to be the perpetrators thereof.
- What the trial and appellate courts disregarded, however, is that the OCBC funds ended
up in the personal bank accountsof respondent Go, and were used to fund his personal
checks, even as he was not entitled thereto. These, if not rebutted, are indicative of estafa.
- Hence, the Petition is GRANTED. Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The July 2, 2007 and October 19, 2007 Orders of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 49 in Criminal Case Nos. 00-187318 and 00-187319 are
declared null and void, and the said cases are ordered REINSTATED for the continuation
of proceedings.
- Demurrer to the evidence40 is "an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect
that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether
true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. The party demurring challenges the
sufficiencyof the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. The court, in passing upon the
sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether
there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict
of guilt. x x x Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is such
evidence in character, weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official
action demanded according to the circumstances. To be considered sufficient therefore,
the evidence must prove: (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree of
participation therein by the accused."41 Thus, when the accused files a demurrer, the court
must evaluate whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient enough to warrant the
conviction of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.42
- "The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial
court, and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of
such discretion."43 As to effect, "the grant of a demurrer to evidence amounts to an
acquittal and cannot be appealed because it would place the accused in double jeopardy.
The order is reviewable only by certiorariif it was issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting tolack or excess of jurisdiction."44 When grave abuse of discretion is present,
an order granting a demurrer becomes null and void.
- As a general rule, an order granting the accused’s demurrer to evidence amounts to an
acquittal. There are certain exceptions, however, as when the grant thereof would not
violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy
- In the instant case, having affirmed the CA finding grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the trial court when it granted the accused’s demurrer to evidence, we deem its
consequent order of acquittal void
Petition granted.
 4. Canceran vs. People, GR No. 206442, 1 July 2015

FACTS

- This is a petition for review seeking to reverse and set aside the CA ruling which
affirmed the rtc decision on convicting Canceran for consummated theft.
- Canceran was charged with frustrated theft when he was caught stealing and carrying
away things from the grocery mall
- Canceran further claimed that an earlier Information for theft was already filed on
October 9, 2002 which was eventually dismissed.
- In January 2003, a second Information was filed for the same offense over the same
incident and became the subject of the present case
- Rtc ruling convicted Canceran guilty of consummated theft since there is no crime of
frustrated theft
- Aggrieved, Canceran filed an appeal where he raised the issue of double jeopardy for the
first time. The CA held that there could be no double jeopardy because he never entered a
valid plea and so the first jeopardy never attached.
- Canceran moved for the reconsideration of the said decision, but his motion was denied
by the CA in its March 7, 2013 resolution
- PETITIONER’S CONTENTION
o Canceran argues that the CA erred in affirming his conviction. He insists that
there was already double jeopardy as the first criminal case for theft was already
dismissed and yet he was convicted in the second case. Canceran also contends
that there was no taking of the Ponds cream considering that "the information in
Criminal Case No. 2003-141 admits the act of the petitioner did not produce the
crime of theft."13 Thus, absent the element of taking, the felony of theft was never
proved.
- In its Comment,14 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contended that there was no
double jeopardy as the first jeopardy never attached. The trial court dismissed the case
even before Canceran could enter a plea during the scheduled arraignment for the first
case

ISSUES

RULING

No double jeopardy when the first jeopardy never attached

Anent the issue of double jeopardy, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the ruling of the
CA.

No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for punishment for the same offense. The rule of double
jeopardy has a settled meaning in this jurisdiction. It means that when a person is charged with
an offense and the case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner
without the consent of the accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical
offense. This principle is founded upon the law of reason, justice and
conscience.27ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Canceran argues that double jeopardy exists as the first case was scheduled for arraignment and
he, already bonded, was ready to enter a plea. It was the RTC who decided that there was
insufficient evidence to constitute the crime of theft.

To raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a 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. Legal jeopardy
attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d)
a valid plea having been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without
the express consent of the accused.28ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Here, the CA correctly observed that Canceran never raised the issue of double jeopardy before
the RTC. Even assuming that he was able to raise the issue of double jeopardy earlier, the same
must still fail because legal jeopardy did not attach. First, he never entered a valid plea. He
himself admitted that he was just about to enter a plea, but the first case was dismissed even
before he was able to do so. Second, there was no unconditional dismissal of the complaint. The
case was not terminated by reason of acquittal nor conviction but simply because he posted bail.
Absent these two elements, there can be no double jeopardy.

the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED with modifications

 5. Tan vs. People, GR No. 173673, 21 April 2009

FACTS

- Before the court is a petition by Dante Tan who claimed to have been violated of his right
to speedy trial
- In behalf of the people of the phil, DOJ charged Tan with the allegations that petioner
employed manipulative devises in the purchase of the corporation’s shares and failed to
file with the Securities and Exchange commission a sworn statement of his beneficial
ownership of the corporation’s shares.
- Petitioner pleaded not guilty

- petitioner moved to dismiss Criminal Case No. 119830 due to the People's alleged failure
to prosecute. Claiming violation of his right to speedy trial, petitioner faults the People
for failing to prosecute the case for an unreasonable length of time and without giving
any excuse or justification for the delay. According to petitioner, he was persistent in
asserting his right to speedy trial, which he had allegedly done on several instances.
Finally, he claimed to have been substantially prejudiced by this delay.
- But before this, parties already agreed that the 2 criminal cases will be tired ahead of the
other criminal case.
- RTC ruling: favored the petitioner ruling that the delay was oppressive and violative.
- This case was elevated saying that the parties already agreed beforehand
- CA ruling: says that respondent judge grave abused his discretion
- Dante Tan filed for a MOR but was denied
- Hence this petition

ISSUES
- WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI VIOLATED TAN'S RIGHT
AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

RULING
There is also no merit to petitioner's claim that a reversal of the RTC's Order dismissing Criminal
Case No. 119830 is a violation of his constitutional right against double jeopardy which
dismissal was founded on an alleged violation of his right to speedy trial.

The constitutional protection against double jeopardy shields one from a second or later
prosecution for the same offense. Article III, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution declares that no
person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense, providing further that
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.

Following the above constitutional provision, Section 7, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court
found it apt to stipulate:
SEC. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. - When an accused has been convicted
or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other
formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had
pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall
be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or
frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
offense charged in the former complaint or information.
For double jeopardy to attach then, the following elements in the first criminal case must be
present:

(a) The complaint or information or other formal charge was sufficient in form and substance to
sustain a conviction;

(b)The court had jurisdiction;

(c)The accused had been arraigned and had pleaded; and

(d)He was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the
express consent of the accused.[43]
Among the above-cited elements, we are concerned with the fourth element, conviction or
acquittal, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the
accused. This element is crucial since, as a general rule, the dismissal of a criminal case resulting
in acquittal, made with the express consent of the accused or upon his own motion, will not place
the accused in double jeopardy.[44] This rule, however, admits of two exceptions, namely:
insufficiency of evidence and denial of the right to speedy trial.[45] While indeed petitioner was in
fact the one who filed the Motion to Dismiss Criminal Case No. 119830, the dismissal thereof
was due to an alleged violation of his right to speedy trial, which would otherwise put him in
double jeopardy should the same charges be revived. Petitioner's situation is different. Double
jeopardy has not attached, considering that the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 119830 on the
ground of violation of his right to speedy trial was without basis and issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Where the right of the accused to speedy
trial has not been violated, there is no reason to support the initial order of dismissal.

Following this Court's ruling in Almario v. Court of Appeals,[46] as petitioner's right to speedy
trial was not transgressed, this exception to the fourth element of double jeopardy - that the
defendant was acquitted or convicted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without
the express consent of the accused - was not met. Where the dismissal of the case was allegedly
capricious, certiorari lies from such order of dismissal and does not involve double jeopardy, as
the petition challenges not the correctness but the validity of the order of dismissal; such grave
abuse of discretion amounts to lack of jurisdiction, which prevents double jeopardy from
attaching.
it follows that petitioner cannot claim that double jeopardy attached when said RTC order was
reversed by the Court of Appeals. Double jeopardy does not apply to this case, considering that
there is no violation of petitioner's right to speedy trial