PROHIBITED PUNISHMENT  It must be given emphasis that in the event that death
penalty will be imposed, we have the provisions, as
Section 19, Article III, of the 1987 Constitution​ provides:
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither
shall the death penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or
degrading punishment against any prisoner or
detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate
penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be
dealt with by law.
EXAMPLE FOR VIOLATION OF PAR. 1:
● If the crime committed is merely a
misdemeanor such as jaywalking, then the fine
should commensurate to the offense. A fine of
P30,000.00 is considered as excessive.
EXAMPLES FOR VIOLATION OF PAR. 2:
● If a person is caught and convicted for adultery,
the punishment probably is imprisonment. The
wife could not be paraded in town stating that
she is an adulterer. That would be considered as
a degrading punishment.
● If a person committed theft, cutting off the
hands or fingers as punishment would be
considered as cruel.
What about death penalty? Is that allowed?
If you will scrutinize Sec. 19, Art. III, then you will come
to realize that this section ​does not altogether outlaw
the death penalty but simply abolished it. Any death
penalty imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
You take note that there is a caveat or a proviso that
death penalty cannot be imposed unless for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. (If death penalty would be
re-imposed, it will only be applicable for heinous
crimes.)
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 1
amended, under Section 3(b), Section 10, of Rule 122
which all provide for an automatic review of a case
where the penalty of death is imposed.
People v. Mateo 
Any such automatic review where the penalty
imposed in a criminal case is death, shall be done first
by the CA before the same will be reviewed
eventually by the Supreme Court, and that’s the
beauty of having this kind of review because accused
will have 50% chance of reversing a judgment of
conviction
Pursuant to the ruling on ​People v. Mateo​,
amendments were introduced to ​Section 3(b) and
Section 10 of Rule 122 of the rules of court​. ​There is
now an automatic review. Amended to the end, where
the penalty imposed is death, appeal is automatic. Even
if the accused does not want to appeal, it will be
reviewed automatically first by the CA, before review by
the SC. When the penalty is death, automatic review.
Accused who committed an offense with reclusion
perpetua as punishment may file a notice of appeal. But
in the punishment of death penalty, even accused does
not file a notice of appeal, there shall be automatic
review.
In the past, we already have a death penalty law.
R.A.7659 which was questioned in the case of People v.
Echegaray. The SC ruled that death through lethal
injection is constitutional and not considered as a cruel
punishment since the person is only made to sleep.
Louisiana v. Resweber 
The accused was sentence to die through the use of
an electric chair as punishment for the crime
committed. However, the execution through an
electric chair was postponed to another day because
of a power failure. It was argued by the accused that
death penalty could no longer be imposed on him
because it would amount to a cruel punishment. He
said that he would be subjected to psychological
 
 

trauma because it’s like prolonging his agony. But the
Supreme Court disagreed, noting that it was not also
the failure or the fault of the prosecution why there
was a brownout on that day where the death through
electrocution was supposed to be carried out.
Sec. 19, Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution ​provides in
essence that the use of substandard and inadequate
penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be
dealt with by law. But in reality, our penal facilities are
already crowded. Inmates are already suffering
subhuman conditions (no water, electricity, etc.). Sadly,
the authorities does not do something about it.
 
DOUBLE JEOPARDY 
 
Section 21 Article III of the 1987 Constitution ​provides
that:
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.
So it is ordinary sense when we speak of double
jeopardy that it applies to a situation where a person is
penalized twice for the same act/crime/offense. And
that is prohibited under Section 21, Article III of the
1987 Constitution.
REQUIREMENT SINE QUA NON FOR  with the Sandiganbayan.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY TO SET IN 
1.  There should be a valid complaint or information 
❏ A ​complaint must be prosecuted with the active
participation of the private offended party
EXAMPLE: Adultery needs the active participation of the
husband; Concubinage needs the active participation of
the wife
❏ But for the rest of the offenses, well it can be
commenced by the filing of an ​information in
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 2
court, and this information has to be signed by
the proper or appropriate officer be it a City
Prosecutor or a Provincial Prosecutor, as the
case may be
❏ Such that where the information is filed in
Court, but it is signed by a mere janitor by the
City Prosecutor’s Office, then such information
therefor is invalid
EXAMPLE: If the case is dismissed because the
information is filed by a person who has no authority to
file the same, then in the event that a new information
will be filed in Court and this time around is signed by
the proper officer, then the accused ​cannot invoke
double jeopardy. In the first place, the information is
not valid. It did not actually put him in actual jeopardy
❏ If the case is dismissed at the prosecutor level
(i.e., at the preliminary investigation level; by
the fiscal), or before the case is filed in court,
then that case may be refiled and the
respondent in that case cannot invoke double
jeopardy.
Icasiano v Sandiganbayan 
Facts: ​The Tanodbayan conducted a preliminary
investigation in connection with a complaint filed
against petitioner for alleged violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The complaint
was dismissed for lack of merit on the
recommendation of the special prosecutor. Another
complaint was lodged against him for the same
violation and a corresponding information was filed
Issue: ​W/N petitioner was placed in double jeopardy
Held: ​NO. The dismissal by the Tanodbayan of the
first complaint cannot bar the present prosecution,
since double jeopardy does not apply. A preliminary
investigation is not a trial to which double jeopardy
attaches.
2.  The valid complaint or information should be filed with 
the competent or appropriate court 
 
 
 ❏ So if the crime is punishable by imprisonment
not exceeding six (6) years, then it follows just
as clearly that the case is cognizable by the MTC
❏ Conversely, where the penalty imposable for
the offense is imprisonment exceeding six (6)
years, then it follows should be filed as it is
cognizable by the RTC
EXAMPLE: So if a case is cognizable by the RTC but for
one reason or another it is filed with the MTC, if the
MTC will dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction, then if
the case will be refiled with the RTC, accused therein
cannot interpose the defense that he will be put in
double jeopardy, because the second requirement is
missing.
Gonzales v Court of Appeals 
Involving the case for rape, but then the case is filed
with the MTC and not with the RTC, then eventually
the case is dismissed because according to the MTC
the case should have been filed with the RTC, and
later on the case was filed with the RTC, now when
that happens can the accused plead Double Jeopardy
as a defense?
The answer is NO, because in the first place or the
first instance the case was filed with the improper
court. This should have been filed in RTC not in the
MTC. Such that the Supreme Court said, that MTC
was right in dismissing that case in lack of jurisdiction.
the arrest, but that will not offer you any court-room
protection because the case may still be refiled.
4.  Accused  must  have  been  convicted  or  acquitted  of  the 
charge  or  that  the  case  against  him  be  dismissed  or 
otherwise terminated without his consent 
 
❏ The first jeopardy must be terminated, either
with the ​conviction or ​acquittal of the accused,
the ​dismissal​, or the ​termination of the case
without his consent
❏ Simply put, it is equally required for double
jeopardy to set in that the first jeopardy be
terminated before you can move for the
dismissal of the second case on the ground of
double jeopardy
EXAMPLE: A case is filed against me for qualified theft
through falsification of commercial documents. While
the case is pending in court, another case for another
information is filed against me, this time around
charging me for the offense of falsification of
commercial documents arising from the same
transaction and the same act. Normally, where that
happens, I cannot move for the dismissal of the second
case on the ground of double jeopardy. I cannot argue
that the second case be dismissed because there is a
pending case already. I will have to wait until such time
that any of the two cases be terminated before pleading
to move for dismissal of the other criminal case.
Because for double jeopardy to set in, it is required that
the first jeopardy be terminated.

3.  Accused must have been arraigned already 

People v Judge Pineda 
 
❏ It is imperative that the case has already moved
Facts: ​Private respondent was charged with two
past the arraignment stage or that the accused
counts of estafa, each one filed with separate courts.
was already arraigned
She sought the quashal of the latter charge on the
apprehension that she is in danger of being
EXAMPLE: You are accused in a criminal case and you
condemned for an identical offense. Respondent
thought that your arrest is illegal and you filed a motion
judge granted the motion to quash.
to quash the information under Sec. 3(c) of Rule 117,
and when that motion will be approved by the Court or
Issue: ​W/N private respondent was in danger of being
when the information is quashed by the Court, thereby
convicted twice for the same criminal act.
dismissing the case, the same may still be refiled. You
cannot invoke your right against double jeopardy to
Held: ​NO. The mere filing of two informations
plead for the dismissal of your case as refiled, because
charging the same offense is not an appropriate basis
in the first place, you have not yet been arraigned.
for the invocation of double jeopardy since the first
While you will be successful in assailing the validity of
 
 
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON 
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 3 
 For better understanding, we will start our discussion
jeopardy has not yet set in by a previous conviction,
on the situation where after trial, accused is acquitted.
acquittal, or termination of the case without the
consent of the accused.
So let us assume that the valid complaint or information
has been filed in court, and such information was filed
TAKE NOTE: These four requirements must be present with the appropriate court, accused was arraigned, trial
before a person can invoke this right against double ensued, and after the presentation of the evidence from
jeopardy. the prosecution and the countervailing evidence from
the accused, the court rendered a judgment of
ATTY. GALEON: But I have a confession to make. I acquittal.
handled two cases, relating to the same act or offense,
but obviously the prosecution somehow filed two cases. If that happens, when the court acquitted the accused,
Gi split nila. I know for a fact that there is a ruling in the can the prosecution, the private complainant, the State,
case of People v. Pineda, but just the same, I filed to the People of the Philippines, file a motion for
quash the information pleading therein the ground of reconsideration thereon asking the court to reconsider
double jeopardy. And in that motion to quash, and its decision?
cognizant of the ruling of Pineda, what I cited however
was the opinion of Judge Regalado which was based on After all there is such thing as this remedy of filing an
the old rule. Because under the old rule, it is enough MR provided it be filed within 15 days. In criminal cases
that one is put in danger of being put twice in jeopardy. any such meritorious motion if at all is allowed should
It is not required that the first jeopardy be terminated. I be filed within 5 days – that is under new rules on
don’t know if what I did was unethical, but I filed the speedy disposition of cases. So if for example the court
motion just the same because that was what my client after trial rendered a judgment of acquittal, ​can the
told me to do, and I felt that it was also my obligation to prosecution file a motion for reconsideration thereon or
do. But then, luckily for us, the opposing counsel did not an appeal seeking to obtain a reversal of that RTC
file any motion to object, or any opposition on our decision or any trial court? Is that allowed?​NO.
motion to quash. The court probably did not also do its
homework, so the second case was dismissed. But it If in a criminal case and after trial the court renders a
shouldn’t be dismissed unta. At the end of the day, the judgment of acquittal, as a rule, the State and the
moral of the story is that there’s no harm in trying. private complainant as well, cannot file an MR of any
such decision because it would be violative of the right
WHEN A CASE IS FILED IN COURT, THERE  of the accused against double jeopardy.
ARE THREE POSSIBLE SITUATIONS 
ARISING THEREFROM:  In the same manner where there is a judgment of
acquittal after trial, then the State as a rule cannot also
file an appeal with the higher court seeking to obtain a
reversal of the decision as thus rendered by the trial
1.  Acquittal  court.
2.  Conviction 
3.  Dismissal  or  Termination  without  the  consent  This is prohibited under ​Sec. 21, Art III of the 1987
of accused  Constitution.

So it is in this light that we shall discuss the possibility of

the accused invoking his right against double jeopardy
in the event that he is either acquitted, convicted, or
the case is just dismissed or terminated without his
consent.
Sec. 21, Art III of the 1987 Constitution 
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

 
 
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON 
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 4 
 acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to People vs. Judge Tac-an 
another prosecution for the same act. GR. No. 148000

SCENARIO 1: JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL  There was a criminal case wherein the accused was
GENERAL RULE:​ Where there is a judgment of acquittal,
the prosecution cannot file a Motion for
Reconsideration or an appeal from such judgment of
acquittal. (​The prosecution cannot appeal from a
judgement of acquittal.)
EXCEPTIONS:
1.  Where the prosecution has been denied a day in court  the absence of the other prosecution witnesses and
or denied due process.  ordered the dismissal of the case. Aggrieved, the
This is the ruling in the case of ​Gorion vs RTC of Cebu.
Gorion vs RTC of Cebu  State was sustained because clearly in that case,
GR. No. 102131
Where the case was dismissed because in the
scheduled trial, the prosecution did not show up. But
there was a reason why the fiscal and the witnesses
for prosecution did not show up because there was a
notice of resetting transferring the hearing of the
case later on. However, on the original date, the
accused, lawyer, and the judge showed up as they
failed to remember of the new schedule. Forthwith,
the accused acted on his speedy disposition of trial
and the judge acted thereon over the dismissal of the
case. Now contending that there was abuse of
discretion committed by the judge, the prosecution
filed an appeal and it was sustained as there was a
denial of due process committed against them.
SC: While as a rule a motion for reconsideration or an
appeal may not be filed by the prosecution where
accused is already acquitted, but in situations where
the prosecution is denied due process, then the filing
of a motion for reconsideration or an appeal is
allowed by exception the general rule.
arraigned upon a valid complaint or information. It
was filed with the proper court and subsequently,
calendared for trial. During the pre-trial, however, the
private complaining witness appeared but the other
material witnesses for the prosecution did not
appear. Take note that the victim was there but the
other corroborative witnesses did not show up. But
for one reason or another, the judge got irked with
State filed an appeal and of course, the accused
interposed the defense of double jeopardy. But the
there was a denial of due process because after all,
under the rules, the presence of prosecution
witnesses during pre-trial is not really required. The
one required to be around is the private complainant
but not the other prosecution witnesses
Take Note of this exception because it happened in the
Ecleo case in Cebu. (I can’t find the case jud, maybe dili
pa siya SC?)
Ruben Ecleo Case 
While the case was pending in court, another person
confessed to supposedly killing the wife of Ecleo and
the case was filed before the court in Barili. During
arraignment, that person pleaded guilty to the
offense before the trial court.
Pirteng reklamoha sa prosecution. It would have an
effect on the case involving the husband. The
prosecution handling the case involving Ecleo
intervened in that case and sought for a
reconsideration of the order. (Accused in the Barili
Court was sentenced). The prosecution moved for the
reopening of the case arguing mistrial. The defense of

 
 
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON 
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 5 

course argued that the case may not be reopened
again because of double jeopardy. But the defense
was not sustained, clearly there was a deprivation of
due process there, because the prosecution was
never notified of the pendency of that case in the
Barili court.
2.​ ​If the Purpose of the Appeal is Merely on the Civil 
Aspect of the Case 
ATTY. GALEON:​ As you might have learned in your
Persons and Family Relations: As a rule if the
prosecution actively intervenes in a criminal case, then
the civil aspect of the case is being instituted therein
unless there is an express reservation of the right to
prosecute the civil case in a separate proceeding.
EXAMPLE:​ In a criminal case, the prosecution or the
private complainant actively participated therein but in
the end the accused is acquitted and the acquittal is
based on reasonable doubt, but then there was no
pronouncement on the civil liability of the accused then
the complainant can still file an appeal or an MR from
that judgment of acquittal for as long as such appeal or
MR only pertains to the civil aspect of the case.
EXAMPLE: ​A case is filed against Atty. G for violation of
BP 22. In the ensuing trial and after presentation of
evidence, the court renders a judgment of acquittal
because the prosecution failed to prove that I was
personally served of a copy of the letter or demand
letter informing him of the dishonor of the check. (​TN​:
In BP 22 cases, it is imperative that the prosecution
must establish that accused is personally notified of
dishonor). Assume that Atty. G was acquitted because
of the failure of the prosecution to prove notice of
dishonor. But then the civil liability was established
because Atty. G did not deny having issued the check
for value. So in that situation, the private complainant
may still file an MR or an appeal from that judgment of
acquittal pertains that it only pertains to the civil aspect
of the case. In that case, Atty. G could not invoke
violation of his right against double jeopardy.
SCENARIO 2: JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION  double jeopardy and should therefore be dismissed.”
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 6
EXAMPLE:​Let’s assume that there is an information filed
before an appropriate court. After trial, it was a
judgment of conviction.
Can the State or the prosecution file an MR or an appeal
from that judgment of conviction in the hope of
imposing upon the accused a penalty higher than what
was imposed upon him?
EXAMPLE:​ Murder. But the court rendered a conviction
for homicide. So there is a judgment of conviction but
the prosecution is not contented because it wanted for
the accused to be convicted of a graver offense of
murder because it has a higher penalty
Where that happens, where there’s a judgment of
conviction, ​can the prosecution file a motion for
reconsideration or an appeal in the hope of imposing
upon the accused the penalty appropriate of the
offense? ​ N
​ O.
If there is a judgment of conviction, as a rule, the state
cannot file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal
to impose a higher penalty​ on the convicted person.
People v. Dela Torre  
GR 137953 March 1, 2002
Under Section 1, Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules of
Criminal Procedure, any party may appeal from a
judgment or final order unless the accused will be put
in double jeopardy. In People vs. Leones, it declared
that:
“while it is true that this Court is the Court of last
resort, there are allegations of error committed by a
lower court which we ought not to look into to
uphold the right of the accused. Such is the case in an
appeal by the prosecution seeking to increase the
penalty imposed upon the accused for this runs afoul
of the right of the accused against double
jeopardy…When the accused after conviction by the
trial court did not appeal his decision, an appeal by
the government seeking to increase the penalty
imposed by the trial court places the accused in
 
 
 The ban on double jeopardy primarily prevents the
State from using its criminal processes as an
instrument of harassment to wear out the accused by
a multitude of cases with accumulated trials. It also
serves as a deterrent from successively retrying the
defendant in the hope of securing a conviction. And
finally, it prevents the State, following conviction,
from retrying the defendant again in the hope of
securing a greater penalty.
While that is the rule, such rule is not absolute.
EXCEPTION:​ Where among others, the defense or the
ACCUSED FILES HIS OWN APPEAL ​from that judgment
of conviction then the appeal thus interposed by the
accused would open up the bloodgates for a possible
appeal to be filed by the prosecution. Therefore, ​it
results in his waiving his right against double jeopardy
such that the prosecution may also file its own appeal.
Going back to the case, accused is convicted for a lesser
offense of homicide but the accused insisted that he is
innocent such that he filed an appeal questioning the
ruling of the RTC. He filed a notice of appeal to the CA.
Where that happens, ​the state in that situation can
take advantage of that and file its own appeal or
motion for reconsideration seeking to impose a higher
penalty.
EXAMPLE:​ ​Two accused were prosecuted for murder.
After trial, they were convicted for homicide but only 1
accused filed an appeal. Assume further that the appeal
filed was given due course such that it was entertained
by the CA but found that accused be convicted instead
for murder. ​Will the decision of the CA affect the
accused who filed the appeal?​ Y​ ES.
Because this amount to a waiver of his right against
double jeopardy. The state now can properly impose a
higher penalty.
Would that apply to the one who did not file an appeal?
NO.
Because as to the accused who did not file an appeal,
the decision of the RTC is already supposedly final. The
adverse ruling of the CA will only affect the accused
who filed an appeal.
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 7
Same facts but this time around the CA gave due course
to the appeal and ruled that the 2 accused should be
innocent of the charge. In that, there is no grounds to
convict them even for homicide. The favorable decision
of the CA would definitely affect the accused who filed
the appeal. ​Would that inure to the advantage of the
one who did not file an appeal?​ ​YES.
In that, while he did not file his appeal, but considering
that the ruling of the CA is favorable to him then, it may
be applied to him even if he did not file an appeal.
ATTY. GALEON’S ADVICE:​ if there are 2 accused in a
case, and there is apparent doubt, do not file an appeal.
GENERAL RULE: ​The prosecution cannot file MR or
appeal from a judgment of conviction
EXCEPTIONS:
1.​ ​ W
​ hen the accused interpose an appeal 
2.​ ​Any MR or appeal filed by the prosecution but only in 
respect to the civil aspect of the case 
  
SCENARIO 3 - TERMINATED OR DISMISSED 
When the case is ​dismissed or terminated without the
court making a pronouncement​ to the guilt of the
innocence of the accused
EXAMPLE:​ in a criminal case, the complainant executed
an affidavit for desistance. So the case was dismissed.
The court did not pronounce the innocence of the
accused but the case is terminated
RULE:
1.​ ​IF SUCH TERMINATION OR DISMISSAL IS DONE
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED ​– the
case may not anymore be re-filed because it would
be violative of the right of the accused against
double jeopardy
EXAMPLE:​In a case for acts of lasciviousness, after I was
arraigned, the complainant informed the court that she
doesn’t want to persecute the case anymore. Then the
court will ask me what I would have to say. And I will
say to the court, “bahala na siya. Iya manang desisyon.”
So I did not consent to the dismissal of the case. If the
 
 
court proceeds to dismiss the case even without my
consent. In the event that the complainant will change
her mind and re-file the case, I can already move to
dismiss the case invoking my right against double
jeopardy. Because while there was no pronouncement
that I was innocent or guilty but there was a dismissal of
the case without my consent.
2.​ ​ ​IF THE TERMINATION OR DISMISSAL IS DONE WITH
THE CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED, AS A RULE, IF THE
CASE WILL BE RE-FILED​ - the accused cannot invoke
his right against double jeopardy
TAKE NOTE:​ The consent here may be made verbally or
in writing.
ATTY. GALEON’S ADVICE:​ If I were you, don’t give
consent
Sec. 8, Rule 117​ dealing with provisional dismissal of
cases. It is provided therein that where the offense
carries with it a ​penalty of imprisonment of not
exceeding 6 years, simply put, the case is cognizable by
the MTC​, if the case is dismissed with the consent of the
accused resulting in the provisional dismissal thereof
then, the case may still be re-filed within the period of 1
year.
Sec. 8, Rule 117, Rules of Court 
Provisional dismissal
A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except
with the express consent of the accused and with
notice to the offended party.
The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of
any amount, or both, shall become permanent one
(1) year after issuance of the order without the case
having been revived. With respect to offenses
punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6)
years, their provisional dismissal shall become
permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order
without the case having been revived.
Just the same, it allows the re-filing of the case
notwithstanding dismissal thereof because in the first
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 8
place, it was done with the consent of the accused and
the dismissal is just probational in character.
If the offense is ​punishable by imprisonment exceeding
6 years or that the offense is cognizable by the RTC​, if
the same is dismissed with the consent of the accused,
then it can be re-filed within the period of 2 years. But
just the same, it speaks of re-filing of the case
notwithstanding the dismissal thereof because in the
first place, dismissal is done with the consent of the
accused. Hence, it is nothing but probational in
character.
So in the actual court practice, normally if the fiscal
cannot present any witness, the fiscal will propose to
the defense to dismiss the case. If you are the lawyer
for the defense, do not agree. Because if you agree on
the provisional dismissal of the case, then your client
cannot invoke his right against double jeopardy or that
the case may be re-filed within the period of 1 year or 2
years as the case may be pursuant to Section 8 of Rule
117. The dismissal if with your consent is probationary.
ATTY. GALEON: I will not agree to such proposal and
would rather ask the court to have the case set for
hearing until the complainant will no longer show up.
Then I will move for the dismissal of the case but on the
ground of violation of the right of my client to speedy
trial.
While the rule is that the case is dismissed, the counsel
of the accused cannot invoke double jeopardy, ​but if
such dismissal is by reason of the deprivation of the
right of the accused to a SPEEDY TRIAL, then even if
such dismissal is upon the instance of the accused, the
accused can still invoke his right against double
jeopardy​.
Similarly, while the rule is that where the dismissal is
done with the consent of the accused, ​but where the
dismissal upon the instance of the accused is based on
the INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE on the prosecution,
then any such dismissal even if with consent will not
deprive the accused of his right on double jeopardy. ​So
the case may not be re-filed anymore.
​ esistance and with my consent. I cannot
EXAMPLE​: D
invoke double jeopardy. But if the case have been
 
 
postponed for the failure of the prosecution to have
witnesses testify in court, even if I am the one who
moved for the dismissal of the case because of the
violation of my right to speedy trial; ​then under Sec 14
Art. 4 of the Constitution, that dismissal even if with
my consent will not result in the waiver of my right
against double jeopardy.
EXAMPLE​: S​ imilarly, if the prosecution presented its
evidence after the prosecution rested this case, and you
filed a demurrer to evidence arguing and contending to
the court that the ​evidence against you is not that
strong or it does not amount to a proof beyond
reasonable doubt, then the case is dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence, such dismissal although upon
your instance or with your consent will not deprive
you of your right to invoke double jeopardy if the
prosecution chooses to re-file the case.
People V Vera  
GR No. 134732 May 19, 2002
If the case is dismissed without the consent of the
accused then he can still invoke his right against
double jeopardy. On the other hand, the ​GR is that if
the dismissal is with the consent of the accused, he
cannot invoke his right against double jeopardy.
XPN: ​the ground for that dismissal even if with the
consent of the accused is anchored on the violation of
right to a speedy trial or the dismissal is based on
insufficiency of evidence.
 
SITUATION 1: 
 
House of A House of B House of C
2 roosters 2 roosters 2 roosters
FACTS: There is a compound without any fence wherein
the owners are involved in cockfighting. While ABC
were asleep, Gravador entered the compound with the
purpose in mind to steal the roosters of A, B, and C.
Then he got the roosters belonging to A, B, and C.
Gravador got caught and a case was filed against him
for stealing the roosters of A and B. Under 1
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 9
information, Gravador was charged of theft for stealing
the fighting the roosters of A and B. Nalimtan ang kay C.
Under the 1​st info​, Gravador pleaded guilty to the
charge. After that, realizing that the case did not involve
the fighting roosters of C, a ​2nd
​ information was filed
against him for theft in stealing the roosters of C. ​May
Gravador move for the dismissal of the 2​nd case for theft
involving the roosters of C on the ground of double
jeopardy?​ ​YES.
He was animated by only one intent or impulse. He
already pleaded guilty to the 1​st information so since
there is only once criminal impulse, he may move for
the dismissal of the case and may invoke his right
against double jeopardy.
Single  Larceny  Doctrine ​- if a person only has a single
criminal impulse or intent, there may only be one case
filed against him even if he performed a series of acts.
SITUATION 2:  
Contrast to single larceny doctrine 
A person performing a single act but this act resulted
in 2 or more offenses or different crimes.
FACTS: I was on my way home and I dozed off while
driving. I swerved and in the process, I hit a pedestrian
resulting to his death. Instead of calling for rescue, he
committed hit and run. So there was just one negligent
act. But then, 2 cases are filed against him:
1. Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
2. Abandonment of one’s victim (Art. 275 of RPC)
May the filing of the 2 cases against him be sustained?
Can he invoke his right against double jeopardy? ​The
case may be sustained and he cannot invoke his right
against double jeopardy for the single act resulted into
2 different crimes. In this situation, the filing of the 2
cases is valid and I cannot invoke my right against
double jeopardy and moved for the dismissal of one of
the two cases.
EXAMPLE:​ If I drive my vehicle, then I pass over a ballot
vendor. I got sued for reckless imprudence resulting in
damage to property but then another case was filed
against me for violation of motor vehicle law.
 
 

Can it be sustained or can I invoke my right against
double jeopardy contending that I only performed a
single negligent act? ​NO​, because while I performed
one single negligent act but it resulted to two different
crimes.
EXAMPLE: Vehicle Coalition, resulting to a death of the
driver of Vehicle A and resulting in slight physical
injuries of the passengers of vehicle A. Two
information’s where filed in Court, (1) reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries (2)
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Then, in this
case for reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical
injuries accused pleaded guilty during arraignment so
forthwith a sentence was meted out to him. And
utilizing that decision, accused now moved for the
dismissal of the second offense of reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide invoking his right against double
jeopardy.
May his invocation of the right against double jeopardy
be sustained where previously in the crime of reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries involving
the passengers he pleaded guilty to the charge but in
another case it involve another person (the driver of the
truck). ​Can he move for the dismissal of the reckless
imprudence case resulting in homicide involving the
death of another person?
ATTY. GALEON: ​NO, but sadly the SC does not agree
base on the case of Jason Aguilar Ivler vs. Judge
Modesto-San Pedro.
Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro 
GR no. 172716 November 17, 2010
SC said where the accused, Ivler, already pleaded
guilty to the case of reckless imprudence resulting in
slight physical injuries involving the wife (the
passenger of other vehicle), he could already move
for the dismissal of the reckless imprudence case
resulting in death involving the husband who was the
driver of other vehicle.
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 10
ATTY. GALEON: ​You may call it unfair but SC said that he
only performed a single act and while there are two
victims but the fact remain that he merely performed a
single negligent act. Probably, the victims can only file a
case for civil damages but not anymore a criminal case
because of double jeopardy. But the ruling of the case
of Ivler opposed the ruling of an earlier case of People
vs. Glenn Delos Santos.
People vs. De los Santos 
GR no. 131588 March 27, 2001
SC said that the offense for the crime for reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries should
be filed under a separate information and should be
considered a distinct and separate case. De los Santos
here was a truck driver and it so happened that there
were Philippine cadets who were having there
morning run. Unfortunately, the break of the truck
got damage so in the process De Los Santos run over
the cadets resulting in the deaths of 12 PNP cadets,
serious physical injuries involving 11 of them and
slight physical injuries involving 10 PNP personnel.
Fiscal filed 3 separate cases of multiple murders,
multiple frustrated murders and multiple attempted
murders. And the judge hearing the case convicted
De Los Santos for multiple murders, multiple
frustrated murders and multiple attempted murders.
On review, SC sustained the conviction but not for
the crime of murder. SC said that the incident was
tragic but the fact remain that Delos Santos did not
act with malice or that he had no intention of actually
killing the victims. It was a result of a simple negligent
act in not checking the breaks of his vehicle. So the SC
convicted Delos Santos not for the crimes of murder,
frustrated murder and attempted murder but for
reckless imprudence resulting in multiple deaths and
multiple serious physical injuries and another count
for reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical
injuries. In this case, SC said that the other crime of
reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical
injuries should not be joint with the other case of
 
 

reckless imprudence resulting in multiple death and
multiple serious physical injuries. In other words,
according to SC, these crimes should be treated as
distinct and separate offenses.
Ivler Case is 2010, Delos Santos Case is 2001 but the
latter case was decided En Banc. Which one is the
controlling case?​ ​IT DEPENDS ​which side you are in.
ATTY. GALEON: Nahitabo ni sa ako. I'm one of the
prosecutors handling a case like that. There was only
one single information filed by the Fiscal, reckless
imprudence resulting in multiple homicide, multiple
serious physical injuries and slight physical injury. The
defense moved for the splitting of the information in
accordance with the De los Santos case.
According to the defense, there should be 2 separate
information (1) reckless imprudence resulting in
multiple deaths and serious physical injuries and the
other information would be for (2) reckless imprudence
resulting in slight physical injuries. The defense was
sustained.
After trial, ilang gi _ ang complainant sa reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries resulting
in the dismissal of the case kay wala siya mitunga
invoking speedy trial. When that happened, accused
moved for the dismissal of other case for reckless
imprudence resulting in multiple deaths and serious
physical injuries invoking the case of Ivler. Because of
the ruling in the case of Ivler, the defense now moved
for the dismissal of the remaining case and of course we
invoke the case of De Los Santos. We were sustained by
the MTC, accused went to RTC on certiorari on
questions of law, asa mo apply De Los Santos or Ivler.
The RTC also is puzzled such that the certiorari case has
been pending before RTC for 10 years now.
ATTY. GALEON: I argued that while the case was filed
what was controlling was the case of Delos Santos. But
the defense argued that the case of Ivler is retroactive
since it is favorable to the accused. But I countered that
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 11
you are already in estoppel because in the first place
you are the one who moved for the splitting of the
cases. ​But frankly I do not know if I'm correct. The
question remains unanswered so I can't give a
categorical answer.
IF YOU ARE FOR THE 
Defense  Prosecution 
Invoke the case of Ivler Invoke the case of delos
Santos
TAKE NOTE: ​Atty G said that he won’t ask this in the
final exams. (#TrustIssues)
SCENARIO 
 
Supposed that a crime committed is murder with the
use of unlicensed firearm.
May there be separate cases for (1) murder and (2)
illegal possession of unlicensed firearm?​ ​NO.
With the amendment of ​PD 1866 brought about by RA
8294​, the supposed offense of illegal possession of
unlicensed firearm is deemed ABSORBED in the graver
offense. It will be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance.
People vs Malinao 
GR No. 128148 Feb 16, 2004
Where the crime is committed with an unlicensed
firearm, then the use and possession thereof are
considered merely as absorbed and considered as an
aggravating circumstance in the graver offense. In
other words, you cannot anymore file a separate
information for illegal possession of unlicensed
firearms where such firearm was used to commit a
graver offense.
 
 
If you read ​SEC 21, ART III OF THE CONSTITUTION​, the
rule on double jeopardy is simple. It merely provides:
“​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.”
But ​SECTION 7 OF RULE 117 OF THE RULES OF COURT
has somehow expanded the scope of the right against
double jeopardy.
Section 7, Rule 117 Of Rules of Court 
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.
However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a
bar to another prosecution for an offense which
necessarily includes the offense charged in the
former complaint or information under any of the
following instances:
(a) the graver offense developed due to
supervening facts arising from the same act
or omission constituting the former charge;
(b) the facts constituting the graver charge
became known or were discovered only after
a plea was entered in the former complaint
or information; or
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 12
(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was
made without the consent of the prosecutor
and of the offended party except as provided
in section 1(f) of Rule 116.
In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused
satisfies or serves in whole or in part the judgment,
he shall be credited with the same in the event of
conviction for the graver offense.
ILLUSTRATION 1 
First Charge:​ MURDER
It was filed with the appropriate court. The accused was
arraigned. Thereafter, trial ensued which resulted in the
ACQUITTAL of the accused.
Second Charge:​ MURDER
Subsequently, the private complainant or the heirs filed
another information arising from the same act and
event. This time around, also, for the crime of murder
hoping that the new judge will convict the accused.
Can the accused move for the dismissal of the 2​nd case of
murder?​ YES.
Will the 2​nd​ case of murder prosper? ​NO.
Sec 7 of Rule 117 of ROC provides that where the
accused has already been acquitted or convicted for a
crime, then he cannot be prosecuted a similar offense
charged in the previous information.
​ILLUSTRATION 2 
 
First Charge:​ MURDER
Accused was ACQUITTED.
Second Charge:​ HOMICIDE
Since the judge was new, private complainant refiled
the case but for homicide.
Will the lesser offense of Homicide prosper?​ N
​ O.
Sec 7 of Rule 117 of ROC provides that where the
accused had already been ​convicted or acquitted for a
 
 
crime, then he cannot be prosecuted for an offense Arising from the same act
which is ​NECESSARILY INCLUDED ​in the offense charged
in the previous information. Will the 2​nd​ case of murder prosper?​NO.

When the accused has already been acquitted for
murder, then he cannot be prosecuted anew for the
lesser offense of homicide. Homicide (killing of a
person) is necessarily included in the offense (murder)
charged in the previous information.
Sec 7 of Rule 117 of ROC likewise provides that where
the accused has already been acquitted or convicted for
a crime, then he cannot be prosecuted anew for a
frustration of the offense which is necessarily included
in the offense charged in the previous information.

ILLUSTRATION 3  ILLUSTRATION 6 
 
First Charge:​ HOMICIDE First Charge:​ LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
Accused was ACQUITTED. Accused was ACQUITTED.

Second Charge:​ MURDER Second Charge:​ SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES

Arising from the same act Arising from the same act

Will the 2​nd​ case of murder prosper?​ ​NO. Will the 2​nd​ case prosper?​ ​NO.

Sec 7 of Rule 117 of ROC likewise provides that where
the accused has already been acquitted or convicted for
a crime, then he cannot be prosecuted anew for an
offense which ​necessarily includes the offense charged
in the previous information.
Sec 7 of Rule 117 of ROC provides that where the
accused has already been acquitted or convicted for a
crime, then he cannot be prosecuted anew for an
offense which necessarily includes in the offense
charged in the previous information.

ILLUSTRATION 4  ILLUSTRATION 7 
   
First Charge:​ HOMICIDE First Charge:​ LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
Accused was ACQUITTED. Accused was ACQUITTED.

Second Charge:​ ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE Second Charge:​ SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES

Arising from the same act Arising from the same act

Will the 2​nd​ case prosper?​ NO. Will the 2​nd​ case prosper?​ NO.

Sec 7 of Rule 117 of ROC likewise provides that where
the accused has already been acquitted or convicted for
a crime, then he cannot be prosecuted anew for an
attempt of the offense which is necessarily included in
the offense charged in the previous information.
Sec 7 of Rule 117 of ROC provides that where the
accused has already been acquitted or convicted for a
crime, then he cannot be prosecuted anew for an
offense which is necessarily included in the offense
charged in the previous information.

ILLUSTRATION 5
General Rule 
First Charge: ​HOMICIDE
Accused was ACQUITTED. Sec  7  Rule  117 provides that where the accused has
already been acquitted or convicted for a crime, then
Second Charge:​ FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE he cannot be prosecuted anew for:

 
 
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON 
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 13 

1. the same offense,
2. an attempt of the offense,
3. a frustration of the offense,
4. an offense which is necessarily include​d ​in
the (graver) offense or
5. an offense which necessarily include​s the
(lesser) offense charged in the previous
information.
Anything that includes the offense charged in the
information will apply. Because ​Section 21 Article 3
gives us the notion that the second case is for the same
offense. ​Section 7, Rule 117 actually expanded the
scope of the right against double jeopardy.
GENERAL RULE: ​After a person have been acquitted or
convicted in a case or that the case against him be
dismissed without his consent, then ​he cannot be
prosecuted for a graver offense or for another offense
which necessarily includes the offense charged under
the previous information.
EXAMPLE: ​If the previous charge for which accused was
acquitted is for less serious physical injuries then he
could be prosecuted anew for a graver offense of
serious physical injuries.
 
EXCEPTIONS  against double jeopardy and move for the dismissal of
offense of serious physical injuries because of
permanent deformity.
Can A invoke in his favor his right against double
jeopardy and move for the dismissal for this case
contending that A was already arraigned and convicted
on May 2? ​NO.
this is the exception. The graver offense developed due
to SUPERVENING FACTS or event arising from the same
act or omission constituting the offense as charged in
the previous information. ​The graver injury developed
from supervening facts because it was only after the
wound got healed that it left a scar in B’s face. The filing
of the second complaint for a graver offense may be
sustained.
EXAMPLE: If the offense file was FRUSTRATED Homicide
and it was filed on April 5 and the arraignment was on
May 2 and the accused pleaded guilty. The court
rendered him guilty and imposed a punishment. But 2
days after he had been sentenced for the crime of
FRUSTRATED Homicide​, the victim died in the hospital
due to complications. Death occurred on May 4, such
that another information for a graver offense was filed
on June 15 for the crime of Homicide.
Where this happens, can the accused invoke his right
the case? ​NO.

1. When  the  graver  offense  develops  from  The accused ​CANNOT invoke his right against double
supervening  facts  ​arising  from  the  acts  or  jeopardy because the graver offense developed from
omissions  constituting  the  offense  charged  in  the  the supervening facts arising from the act or omission
previous information.​ ​(Section 7 Rule 117) constituting the offense charged in the previous
complaint.
EXAMPLE: ​A got into an argument with B. in the course
of the argument, A boxed B, causing a wound in his TAKE NOTE: ​But where the cause of death is not related
face. So B filed a case for slight physical injuries on the from the act or omission constituting the offense as
presumption that the wound would heal in just about 9 thus charged in the previous complaint then the
days. The information was filed on April 5 then the subsequent filing of the information for the graver
arraignment was held on May 2. ​During the offense will not prosper and the accused can invoke his
arraignment, A pleaded guilty. Judge C rendered the right against double jeopardy.
judgement and imposed the appropriate penalty.
EXAMPLE: ​Same situation, the first charge was for
A month after, when the wound healed, B found out frustrated homicide, arraignment was on May 2, the
that the wound left a big scar in his face. He found out accused pleaded guilty of the charge and given the
about it on June such that on June 15, he filed against A appropriate penalty thereof. But on May 4, the victim
another information this time around, for a graver
 
 
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON 
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 14 
died not because of complications but because of a 2019 but for some reason, the court failed to notify the
heart attack on the high billing by the hospital. So an private complainant. No notice was given to the private
information for Murder was filed on June 15 because of complainant that there will be arraignment and pre-trial
the death. on the said date. The accused proposed during the said
arraignment and pre-trial to plea bargain for a lesser
​ O.
So will the charge prosper?N offense, that instead of frustrated homicide, he be
convicted instead to serious physical injuries.
Clearly, the supervening facts did not arise from the act
or omission constituting the offense charged in the ​ ES, ​BUT the rule is
Is that kind of plea bargain allowed? Y
previous complaint. I was for a cause ​INDEPENDENT of that, it should be w​ith the consent of the complainant.
the injury inflicted on the victim.
In the situation given above, for one reason or another,
2. When  the  facts  constituting  a  graver  offense  were  the private complainant was not served with a notice
discovered  or  made  known  only  after  accused  for the arraignment and pre-trial on May 2, 2019. So not
pleaded  or  entered  a  plea  under  the  previous  necessarily that he did not show up in Court.
complaint.  Notwithstanding the absence of the private
complainant because of the lack of due notice, the court
EXAMPLE: allowed the accused to enter a guilty plea to a lesser
April 15, 2019​ = Information for frustrated homicide offense of serious physical injury where the charge was
May 2, 2019 = Arraignment (accused pleaded guilty for for frustrated homicide. In the event that the
frustrated Homicide) complainant will complain and insist that the accused
May 3, 2019 = The handling prosecutor was informed should be tried not for serious physical injuries but for
that on May 1, 2019 the victim already died. frustrated homicide, then, this will be ​SUSTAINED.
May 4, 2019 = Fiscal filed a second information for
homicide Can the prosecution object invoking right against double
​ O
jeopardy? N
​ O
Can the accused moved for the dismissal of the case?N
Here, the accused is allowed to plea bargain for a lesser
Accused cannot invoke his right against double jeopardy offense w​ithout the consent of the complainant.
because the ​fact constituting the graver offense was
made known only after the accused entered a plea This is the ​third exception to the ​GENERAL RULE​: that
under the previous charge or information. You cannot after the accused had been acquitted or convicted for
fault the prosecutor nor the State an offense, then he can no longer be prosecuted anew
for a graver offense or one that usually includes the
3. When  the  accused  in  a  criminal case is allowed to  offense charge in the previous complaint.
enter  a  guilty plea to a lesser offense during a ​plea 
bargaining and it was done or allowed ​without the  Duly  Notified  By  The  Court  +  Unjustified  Absence - the
presence and consent of the private complainant.  complainant ​cannot anymore complain if the fiscal
allowed the accused to plea bargain to a lesser offense
During arraignment, the complainant is ​NOTIFIED but
the complainant MAY NOT appear. During the pre-trial, Justified  Absence ​- complainant ​can complain and insist
the private complainant should be around or present. that the case will proceed with the graver offense or as
in this case, frustrated homicide. Accused cannot
REASON: ​Because chances are, there may be a plea therefore interpose in his favor the defense of his right
bargaining during the pre-trial. against double jeopardy.

EXAMPLE: ​The charge is for frustrated homicide. QUESTION from student:

Arraignment and pre-trial were all scheduled on May 2,

 
 
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON 
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 15 
Can the accused invoke the right for a speedy trial if the
complainant is absent in the above scenario?
ATTY. GALEON: In speaking of a speedy trial, it means
that there is already a ​repeated postponement of the
case. Normally, the judge is giving a number of warnings
before dismissing the case.
IMPORTANT: Read Sec 21, article 3 of the 1987
Constitution vis a vis Sec. 7 of the Rules of Court.
BUT even if there is a compromise agreement and the
court will grant the provisional dismissal of the case, i​f
the accused would renege on his undertakings on that
compromise agreement, then the case may be
REFILED.
Essence of the provisional dismissal of the case​: The
case may be refiled within one year or two years
depending o​n whether or not the accused would fulfill
his undertakings on the compromise agreement.

IMPORTANT: Have your client arraigned before having

Sec 21, Art. 3 of the 1987 Constitution  
“No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of the case dismissed so that you can later on invoke the
punishment for the same offense. If an act is right against double jeopardy.
punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to EXAMPLE:​ ​So there’s this Congressman gipabuto iya
another prosecution for the same act.” chopper, so he filed a case against the opposing party,
the opposing candidate. And then they had a
compromise agreement before the prosecutor’s office.
  One of the terms therein is that they would somehow
PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL OF CRIMINAL  result to coalition so sila nalang. Gi dismiss ang kaso sa
CASES  fiscal. Of course parehas silag partido. So the aggrieved
party later on was allowed to run unopposed for a
congressional post in their place. But of course in
ATTY. GALEON: I’d like to inform you that where in a
politics there are no permanent friends or interests so
criminal case there is a compromise agreement entered
the next election, kontra na.
into by the parties, normally the court will ​not grant a
dismissal of the case with prejudice. If at all, the court
So when the one party filed his certificate of candidacy,
will approve the compromise agreement, the court will
the alleged offender also filed his certificate of
just resolve of having the case ​provisionally dismissed.
candidacy. So kontra na, nasuko tong agrabyado who
suffered damages kay girakrakan man alleging na mao
In other words, it is with the consent of the accused so
ang gi kargahan sa money. So he refiled the case and of
it can be refiled within one year or two years as the case
course the alleged offender invoked double jeopardy
may be ​pursuant to Section 8 of Rule 117.
and of course he was not sustained so the case was filed
in court.
ATTY. GALEON: ​Once you become lawyers, if the parties
in the criminal case will execute a compromise
ATTY. GALEON: ​But what baffled me was that the
agreement ​DO NOT COMMIT THE MISTAKE OF HAVING
supposed offender was a lawyer himself. So he forgot
THE CASE DISMISSED WITHOUT HAVING YOUR CLIENT
his basic, ​the double jeopardy will not set in unless
ARRAIGNED​ (if you are representing the accused)
among others there is arraignment​. So when the case
was refiled, that was when they had another round of
Have the case dismissed ​after the arraignment so that
compromise. So compromise na pod, so learning from
even after the compromise agreement, then after the
his mistake, so this time around, ​he protected his
lapse of one year or two years as the case may be, there
interest in that before proceeding to have the case
is no way that the complainant can refile the case.
dismissed provisionally, he already entered his plea​.
Nagpa-arraign siya learning from his past mistake.
Accused can already invoke the right against double
jeopardy because there is already an arraignment.
Sec. 20, Article III Of The 1987 Constitution 
 
 
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON 
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 16 

“No person shall be imprisoned for debt or for
non-payment of poll tax.”
Poll  tax - ​refers to your community tax certificate. So
you cannot be imprisoned for non-payment or even
non-procurement of your cedula or community tax
certificate.
Although you cannot be imprisoned for non-payment of
community tax certificate, but if you falsify it, of course
you can be prosecuted for falsification of public
document if you under-declare your income. But then if
you do not pay your poll tax at all, there is no penalty.
You cannot be imprisoned for that. Settled in criminal
law, ​nullum  crimen  nulla  poena  sine  lege​, ​there is no
crime if there is no law punishing the same. Even if
there is a law punishing the non-payment of poll tax,
any such law will be declared unconstitutional in light of
Sec. 20, Article III, to the end that SEC. 20, Art. III of
1987, “No person shall be imprisoned for debt or for
non-payment of poll tax.”
As worded, no person shall be imprisoned for debt. Mao
ni siya ang mantra sa mga mahilig mangutang kay
according to them walay napriso sa utang. Well, they
have legal basis for that because of Sec. 20, Art. III. If at
all, you can only be sued civilly. A criminal case cannot
be filed against you, ​only a simple civil case for
collection of sum of money or breach of contract with
prayer for award of damages because the Constitution
is clear.
BATASANG PAMBANSA BILANG 22  check or tomake arrangement for full payment
But what if the guaranteed payment of your obligation,
assuming that you are the debtor, is ​a check in favor of
your creditor but when the check falls due​, your bank
account, against which your check would have to be
withdrawn, is not sufficient at that time and you’re
prosecuted for Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Take note
that under ​BP 22​, ​there is this penalty of imprisonment
especially if the person is a habitual offender. ​The
court is given the discretion whether or not to impose a
fine or a penalty of imprisonment or both. So there is a
penalty for imprisonment for violation of BP 22 but the
question now is, is this law valid considering that Sec.
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 17
20, Art. III is in the Constitution and it is settled that the
latter is the fundamental law of the land to which all
other laws must conform?
So again, I issued the check but I failed to maintain
money in the bank because of necessity I had to
withdraw the money, I did it in good faith so there is no
fraud or deceit. ​Is that law (BP 22) valid?​ ​YES.
What is penalized under BP 22 is not actually the
non-payment of the obligation but the fact of issuing a
check which would erode our confidence in the banking
system. So the ​covenant of the offense is not the
non-payment of the obligation but the issuance of the
check which would erode our confidence in the
banking system.
Arceta vs Judge Mangrobang 
GR 152895 June 15, 2004
SC said that BP 22 is valid in that it is not violative
therefore of Sec. 20, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution.
Facts:
The City Prosecutor of Navotas, Metro Manila
charged Ofelia V. Arceta with violating Batas
Pambansa 22 in an Information, alleging that Arceta
issued a Regional Bank check worth P740,000 to
Oscar R. Castro payable in CASH, ​well-knowing that
at the time of issue she did have sufficient funds or
credit with the drawee bank for the payment​, and
despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, Arceta
failed to pay said payee with the face amount of said
thereof within 5 banking days after receiving notice.
Arceta did not move to have the charge against her
dismissed or the Information quashed on the ground
that BP 22 was unconstitutional.
She reasoned out that with the Lozano doctrine still
in place, such a move would be an exercise in futility
for it was highly unlikely that the trial court would
grant her motion and thus go against prevailing
jurisprudence. On 21 October 2002, Arceta was
arraigned and pleaded not guilty´ to the charge.
 
 
However, she manifested that her arraignment
should be without prejudice to the present petition
or to any other actions she would take to suspend
proceedings in the trial court. Arceta [GR 152895]
then filed the petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus, with prayers for a temporary restraining
order, ​assailing the constitutionality of the Bouncing
Checks Law (BP 22).
On the other hand, the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Caloocan filed a charge sheet against Gloria S. Dy
for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law (MeTC of
Caloocan City, Criminal Case 212183), alleging in the
Information that on or about the month of January
2000, Dy issued Prudential Bank Check 0000329230 in
the amount of P2,500,000.00 dated 19 January 2000
in favor of Anita Chua well knowing at the time of
issue that she has no sufficient funds in or credit with
the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full
upon its presentment which check was subsequently
dishonored for the reason ACCOUNT CLOSED´ and
with intent to defraud failed and still fails to pay the
said complainant the amount of P2,500,000.00
despite receipt of notice from the drawee bank that
said check has been dishonored and had not been
paid.
Issue: ​Whether the Court should render BP22
unconstitutional due to the present economic and
financial crisis, else due to the undue burden made
upon the MeTC by bouncing checks cases.
Ruling: ​NO. When the issue of unconstitutionality of a
legislative act is raised, it is the established doctrine
that the Court may exercise its power of judicial
review only if the following requisites are present: (1)
an actual and appropriate case and controversy
exists; (2) a personal and substantial interest of the
party raising the constitutional question; (3) the
exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest
opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question
raised is the very lismota of the case. Only when
these requisites are satisfied may the Court assume
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 18
jurisdiction over a question of unconstitutionality or
invalidity of an act of Congress.
With due regard to counsel’s spirited advocacy in
both cases, the Court was unable to agree that the
said requisites have been adequately met. Nor does
the Court find the constitutional question raised to be
the very lis mota presented in the controversy below.
Every law has in its favor the presumption of
constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there
must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the
Constitution​, and not one that is doubtful,
speculative or argumentative.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 115 
EXAMPLE: If you happen to secure from your supplier
new jewelry items under the obligation to dispose the
same on commission such that you would impose or
you would mark up the prices for the jewelry items and
then you would get or receive the markup price as your
share or your commission and return to the owner the
base price of the jewelry items. In the event that there
is a violation thereof, you disposed the items by sale but
then contrary or in violation of your obligation to
forward or turnover to your supplier the proceeds of
the sale, you misappropriated the same.
Can you be prosecuted for PD 115 or is it violative rather
of Sec. 20, Art. III? Is that law (PD 115) valid when there
is a provision that no person shall be imprisoned for
non-payment of debt​?​ ​YES.
People vs Judge Nitafan 
GR No. 81559-60, 207 SCRA 726
SC said that PD 115 is undoubtedly valid because the
gravamen of the offense is because of the deceit or
abuse of confidence committed by the person who
secured the jewelry items from another person
under the obligation of turning over to the supplier
the proceeds of the sale.
 
 
 Facts: ​Respondent judge granted a motion to quash
an information for estafa on the ground that the
penal clause of PD. No. 115 on the Trust Receipts Law
is inoperative because it does not actually punish an
offense mala prohibita.

Issue: ​Whether or not PD 115 is unconstitutional as it

violates the constitutional prohibition against
imprisonment for non-payment of debt.

Ruling: ​NO. The Trust Receipts Law punishes the

dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of
money or goods to the prejudice of another
regardless whether the latter is the owner or not. The
law does not seek to enforce payment of the loan.
Thus, there can be no violation of a right against
imprisonment for non-payment of a debt.

TAKE NOTE:​ BP 22 and BP 115 are valid.

EXAMPLE: There is a circular issued by the SC mandating

the judges to refrain from imposing the penalty of
imprisonment. According to that circular, the penalty of
imprisonment may only be imposed if it is established
that the accused is a habitual offender or he did the
offense, not just once or twice but a number of times.
So, basically according to that circular, if the accused is
a first-time offender, then only a fine may be imposed
by the judge. Where the law clearly gives the judge a
discretion to impose either imprisonment, fine, or both.
Do you think that circular of the SC is valid or does that
amount to a judicial legislation?

ATTY. GALEON: Well, so far, nobody questioned the

validity of that circular, lest probably the SC will initiate
that action. But there is a gray area there. Diba? Isn’t
that a usurpation of the powers of Congress, is that not
a judicial legislation? I do not know but so far nobody
ever questioned the same. Probably the SC issued that
circular in relation to Sec. 20, Art. III.

 
 
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED - MAY 16 TRANSCRIPT | ATTY. GALEON 
AGUILAR | ALGARME | BELARMA | EBAL | ESBER | JABINES | LABASTIDA | LUMBRE | NAPATOTAN | OBALLO​ 19