Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Crimpro Review-MTQ and Rights
Crimpro Review-MTQ and Rights
Reason: The policy on dj is the concern that - The rationale behind this exception is that a
permitting the sovereign freely to subject the citizen to judgment rendered by the trial court with gad was
a second judgment for the same offense would arm issued w/o jurisdiction, hence, void, and no dj
the government with a potent instrument for attached. (Castro vs. PP, GR 180832, July 23,
oppression (Co vs Lim, ibid). 2008).
(4) DJ presupposes that a first jeopardy has already (5) Acquittal of the accused does not affect the right of
attached prior to the second jeopardy and such the offended party or the accused to appeal the
jeopardy has already been terminated either civil aspect of the case because the concept of dj
because the accused has already been convicted, has reference only to a criminal case and has no
or acquitted or the case against him has been effect on the civil liability of the accused.
dismissed or terminated without his express
consent. If despite the termination of the first Requisites of DJ
jeopardy or danger, he is put in danger anew for (1) In order to successfully invoke dj, the following
the same offense as in the first, then dj arises. requisites must be present, namely:
Effects of dj; on criminal and civil aspects (a) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the
(1) When dj exists, “the conviction or acquittal of the second, which has the following elements:
accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar 1) that accused has been convicted or acquitted,
to another prosecution for the offense charged, or or the case against him was dismissed or
for any attempt to commit the same or frustration terminated without his express consent;
thereof, or for any offense which necessarily 2) that the conviction, acquittal, or dismissal was
includes or is necessarily included in the offense made by a court of competent jurisdiction;
charged in the former complaint or information 3) there is a valid complaint or information or
(Section 7, Rule 117, RoC). other formal charge sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction;
(2) Under the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, an 4) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and
acquittal, whether ordered by the trial or appellate 5) the subsequent prosecution is for an offense
court, is final and unappealable either through a which is the same as the former complaint or
regular appeal under Rule 41 or an appeal by information or for any attempt of the same or
certiorari on pure questions of law under Rule 45 a frustration thereof, or for any offense which
of the RoC, on the ground of dj. The rationale necessarily includes or is necessarily included
behind the rule is not only the accused already in the offense charged in the former complaint
established his innocence at the first trial where he or information.
(b) the first jeopardy must have been validly public prosecutor cannot subscribe to or sign the
terminated; and formal charge for seduction, abduction, and acts of
(c) the second involves the same offense or is lasciviousness.
necessarily included in offense charged in the first
jeopardy. (4) Where the officer who filed the information has no
authority to do so, the information is indeed
(2) When the prosecution is deprived of a fair defective and could not sustain a conviction and
opportunity to prosecute and prove its case or the court does not acquire jurisdiction thereto.
where the trial was a sham, its right to due
process is thereby violated, in which courts are Accused should have pleaded to the charge
thereby ousted of their jurisdiction, and decisions (1) It is settled that the accused should have been
rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack arraigned and had validly pleaded to the charge in
of jurisdiction. Consequently, dj cannot be invoked order for dj to attach.
since the dismissal was not made by a competent
court. (2) In the case of PP vs Magat, where the accused pg
but bargained for a lesser penalty which the trial
P. investigation and Admin. cases, dj not court imposed 10 years of imprisonment for each
applicable count of rape, but when revived upon the instance
- It is well-settled that the dismissal of a case during of the complainant on the ground that the penalty
its p.i. stage does not constitute dj since a p.i. is not is too light, the trial court, after being satisfied of
part of the trial and is not the occasion for the full and accused’s voluntariness of his pg, rendered a
exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence. (Vincoy vs. judgment of conviction and imposed death penalty.
CA, 432 SCRA 36). On appeal, the accused-appellant contends that dj
attached as when he previously entered a plea of
- Double jeopardy does not lie in administrative cases guilty for a lesser penalty, and later, the court
since all the five requisites of first jeopardy are not changed such penalty. The Court disagreed, as the
present. Significantly, there are three (3) remedies order of the trial court convicting the accused-
available against a public officer for impropriety in the appellant on his own plea of guilty and sentencing
performance of his powers and the discharge of his him to a light penalty was void ab initio on the
duties: civil, criminal, and administrative. These basis that accused-appellant’s plea was not the
remedies may be invoked separately, alternately, plea bargaining contemplated and allowed by
simultaneously, or successively. law and the rules of procedure. The only
instance where a plea bargaining is allowed under
Res judicata and dj (res judicata in prison grey) the Rules is when an accused pleads guilty to a
- Res judicata is a doctrine of civil law and thus has no lesser offense. Here, the reduction of the penalty
bearing on criminal proceedings even if double is only a consequence of the plea of guilty to a
jeopardy has been described as “res judicata in prison lesser penalty.It is the essence of a plea of guilty
grey.” that the accused admits absolutely and
unconditionally his guilt and responsibility for
Valid complaint or information the offense imputed to him. In the case of
(1) For dj to be invoked, Sec. 7 of Rule 117 requires Magat, accused-appellant’s plea of guilty was a
that “there must be a valid complaint or conditional plea. Since it was a conditional plea,
information or formal charge sufficient in form the trial court should have vacated such a plea and
and substance to sustain a conviction.” entered a plea of not guilty and which would
require a full-blown trial before judgment may be
- The sufficiency of the complaint or information or rendered. Since the plea is void, the judgment
the formal charge is dependent on whether the rendered against the accused is also void, thus, dj
same could sustain a conviction. If it could not will not lie.
sustain the conviction desired, then the charge is
not a valid one which would preclude double Note: In Magat, the accused was re-arraigned and he
jeopardy. entered a new plea, thus correcting the procedural
infirmity.
(2) A complaint or information may not be considered The accused has been convicted or acquitted, or
valid if it does contain the basic requisites for the the case against him dismissed or terminated
sufficiency of a complaint as it would not be without his express consent
sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
conviction. Dismissal or termination must be without the
express consent of the accused
(3) It is submitted that the charges are not to be (1) For the accused to invoke dj, it must be shown
deemed valid because conviction will not be that in the prior charge, he had been either
possible where the formal charges for adultery and convicted or acquitted. He may also show that the
concubinage are not subscribed by the offended case against him had been dismissed or terminated
party but by the public prosecutor. Also, unless without his express consent. (Sec. 7, Rule 117,
the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated RoC). In other words, the rule contemplates that
and she has no known parents, gp, or guardian, a the first jeopardy had been validly terminated and
because of such termination, the accused could no a dj will not apply even if the accused expressly moved
longer be exposed to another jeopardy. for the termination of the proceedings. If the dismissal
was predicated on the unreasonable delay in the
(2) Thus, the mere filing of two informations or proceedings in violation of the accused’s right to
complaints charging the same offense does not yet speedy trial, dj may attach even if the dismissal of the
afford the accused in those cases the occasion to case was with the consent of the accused. (Condrada
complain that he is being placed in jeopardy twice vs PP, 398 SCRA 482).
for the same offense, for the simple reason that
there is no decree of “conviction, acquittal, or - The dismissal of a criminal case upon motion of tha
dismissal without his consent” that is yet rendered accused because the prosecution was not prepare for
in any of the two cases. It is the conviction or trial since the complainant and his witnesses did not
acquittal or termination of the case without appear at the trial is a dismissal equivalent to an
his consent that bars further prosecution for acquittal that would bar further prosecution of the
the same offense or any attempt or defendant for the same offense. The use of the word
frustration to commit the same, or for any “provisional´would not change the legal effect of the
offense which necessarily includes in the dismissal.
former complaint or information.
- It was thus held that if the acused wants to exercise
(3) Also, if the accused moves for the dismissal of the his constitutional right to a speedy trial, he should not
case due to lack of jurisdiction or insufficiency of ask for the dismissal, but ask for the trial of the case.
the information to sustain a conviction, and the After the prosecution’s motion for postponement of
same was indeed dismisses, the dismissal is with trial is denied and upon order of the court the fiscal
the express consent of the accused and cannot be does not or cannot produce his evidence and,
the basis for a claim of dj. The motion by the consequently, fails to prove the defendant’s guilt, the
accused which indicates express consent operates court upon defendant’s motion shall dismiss the case,
as a waiver of his constitutional right against dj for such dismissal amounting to an acquittal of the
the reason that he effectively prevents the trial defendant. (Andres vs Dacdac, L-45650. 1982).
court from proceeding to trial on the merits and
rendering a judgment of conviction against him. - The discharge of an accused to be a state witness
shall amount to an acquittal and shall be a bar to a
Exception: If the dismissal was predicated on the future prosecution for the same offense, unless the
unreasonable delay in the proceedings in violation accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-
of the accused’s right to speedy trial, dj may accused in accordance with his sworn statemenmt
attach even if the dismissal of the case was with constituting the basis for his discharge. (Rule 119).
the consent of the accused.
(b) Insufficiency of the evidence (Demurrer)
(4) The consent that would preclude another - When the court grants a demurrer to evidence on the
prosecution in order to be deemed an express ground of insufficiency of evidence, the dismissal
one should be “positive, direct, unequivocal, amounts to an acquittal.
and requiring no inference or implication to
supply its meaning.” - The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, is “filed
after the prosecution had rested its case,” and when
(5) In the case of Andress vs Cacdac, the Court the same is granted, it calls “for an appreciation of the
explained that “When a criminal case is dismissed evidence adduced by the prosecution and its
upon the application and express consent of sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond reasonable
doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the case on the
the accused and his counsel, the dismissal is
merits, tantamount to an acquittal of the
not a bar to another prosecution for the same
accused.” Such dismissal of a criminal case by the
offense because his action in having the case grant of demurrer to evidence may not be appealed,
dismissed constitutes a waiver of his constitutional for to do so would be to place tha ccused in dj. The
prerogative against dj as he thereby prevents the verdict beong one of acquittal, the case ends there.
court from proceeding to the trial on the merits (PP vs SB, 164577, July 5, 2010).
and rendering judgment of conviction against him.”
Double jeopardy in quasi offenses
Dismissals equivalent to acquittal even witht the - In the cases of Ivler vs Modesto-San Pedro and
consent of the accused; speedy trial; demurrer to PP vs Buan, SC reasoned that once convicted or
evidence acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the
(1) Double jeopardy will apply even if the dismissal is accused may not be prosecuted again for that same
made with the express consent of the accused, or act. For the essence of the quasi offense of criminal
upon his own motion, only if it is predicated on negligence under Art. 365 of the RPC lies in the
either of two grounds: execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if
intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony.
(a) Denial of the right to speedy trial The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless
- A dismissal based on a violation of the right to act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the
speedy trial is equivalent to an acquittal. A waiver of consequence is only taken into account to determine
the penalty, it does not qualify the substance of the permanent and can be revived within the period set by
offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the the Rules of Court.
injurious result should affect one person or several
persons, the offense remains one and the same, and - The new rule was conceptualized by the Committee
can not be split into different crimes and prosecutions. on the Revision of the Rules and approved by the
Court en banc primarily to enhance the administration
Double jeopardy shall not apply despite a prior of the cjs and the rights to due process of the State
conviction and the accused by eliminating the deleterious practice
- As a general rule, the rule on dj precludes another of trial courts of provisionally dismissing criminal caes
prosecution “for any attempt to commit the same or on motion of either the prosecution or the accused or
frustration thereof, or for any offense which jointly, either with no time-bar for the revival thereof
necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the or with a specific period for such revival by the public
offense charged.” prosecutor. There were times that such criminal cases
were no longer revived or refilled due to some causes
- Section 7 of Rule 117 provides for the exception to the prejudice of the State and the accused despite
which provides that the conviction of the accused shall the mandate to public prosecutors and trial judges to
not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense expedite criminal proceedings.
which necessarily includes the offense charged in the
former complaint or information under any of the - The inordinate delay in the revival or refilling of
following instances: criminal cases may impair or reduce the capacity of the
(a) the graver offense developed due to supervening State to prove its case with disappearance or non-
facts arising from the same act or omission availability of its witnesses. Memories of witnesses
constituting the former charge; may have grown dim or have faded. Passage of time
(b) the facts constituting the graver charge became makes proof of any fact more difficult. The longer the
known or were discovered only after a plea was lapse of time from the dismissal fo the case to the
entered in the former complaint or information; or revival thereof, the more difficult it is to prove the
(c) the plea os guilty to lesser offense was made crime.
without the consent of the prosecutior and of the
offended party except as otherwise provided in - Section 8 of Rule 117 is divided into two parts; the
Section 1(f) of Rule 116. first refers to the requirements before the second part,
the time-bar shall be operate. Thus, if the express
In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused consent of the accused or without notice to the
satisfies or serves in whole or in part the judgment, he offended party, the case may be revived even after the
shall be credited with the same in the event of periods stated in the second paragraph of Sec. 8,
conviction for the graver offense. subject to the defense of prescription or the defense of
dj if applicable under the circumstances.
Meaning of the same offense; when not the same
- Same offense means the offense charged, or an - Thus, within the periods set forth by Section 8, Rule
attempt to commit it or a frustrated stage thereof, or 117, the prosecution has to revive the case if it desires
“any offense which necessarily includes or is to prevent the provisional dismissal becoming
necessarily included in the offense charged in the permanent and the revival of the case being time-
former complaint or information.” barred.
- Two or more offenses arising from the same act are - The time-bar does not reduce the periods under Art.
not the same if one provision of law requires proof of 90 of the RPC (prescription of crimes), a substantive
an additional fact or element which the other does not. law. It is but a limitation of the right of the State
Elsewise stated, where two different laws or articles of to revive a criminal case against the accused after
the same code define two crimes, prior jeopardy as to the Information had been filed but subsequently
one of them is no obstacle to a prosectuiton of the provisionally dismissed with the express consent of the
other, although both offenses arise from the same accused. Upon the lapse of the timeline under the new
facts, if each crime involves some important act which rule, the State is presumed, albeit disputably, to have
is not an essential element of the other. abandoned or waived its right to revive the case and
prosecute the accused. Th dismissal becomes ipso
- In Suero vs People, the Court stresses that the facto permanent.
constitutional right against dj protects from a second
prosecution for the same offense, not for a different - The State may revive a criminal case beyond the
one. Thus, even if the case arose out of the same one-year or two-year periods provided tha there is a
incident or transaction, the dismissal of one case would justifiable necessity for the delay. (PP vs Lacson,
not constitute dj against the accused in the other case 149453, April 1, 2003).
if the quantum of evidence required to sustain both
cases are not similar. Effect of People vs Lacson
(1) It interpreted and in effect expanded the requisites
Provisional dismissal under Sec. 8, Rule 117 of the RoC. Accordingly,
- The concept of provisional dismissal contemplates the following requirements are conditions sine qua
that the dismissal of the criminal action is not non for the application of the time-bar rule:
(a) the prosecution with the express conformity of impair, reduce, and diminish the State’s
the accused or the accused moves for a substantive right to prosecute the accused.
provisional dismissal fo the case, or both the
prosecution and the accused move for a Withdrawal of Information vs Motion to Dismiss
provisional dismissal of the case; - While it is true that both put an end to an action filed
(b) the offended party is notified of the motion for in court, their legal effect varies, namely:
a provisional dismissal of the case;
(c) the court issues an order granting the motion (1) The order granting the w.i. attains finality after
and dismissing the case provisionally; fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, without
prejudice to the re-filing of the information upon
Reason: The reason for the requirement of the reinvestigation;
express consent of the accused to a provisional
dismissal of a criminal case is to bar him from whereas, the order granting a m.d. becomes final
subsequently asserting that the revival of the criminal fifteen (15) after receipt thereof, with prejudice
case will place him in dj for the same offense or for an to the re-filing of the same case once such order
offense necessarily included therein. achieves finality.
(2) Said case also ruled that although the second (2) A m.w is not time-barred and does not fall within
paragraph of the new rule states that the order of the ambit of Sec. 8, RRoC Procedure;
dismissal shall become permanent one year after
the issuance thereof without the case having been whereas, a m.d. when filed thus puts into place
revived, the provision should be construed to mean the time-bar rule on provisional dismissal because
that the order of dismissal shall become what Sec. 8 of Rule 117 contemplates is the filing
permanent one year after service of the order of a motion to dismiss, and not a motion to
of dismissal on the public prosecutor who has withdraw information.
control of the prosecution without the criminal case
having been revived. The public prosecutor cannot
be expected to comply with the timeline unless he
is served with a copy of the order of dismissal.
Right to appeal
- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have
the right to appeal in the manner prescribed by law.
(Hilario vs PP, 551 SCRA 191).