Double Jeopardy; Upgrading; Original Charges (2005)

For the multiple stab wounds sustained by the victim, Noel was charged with frustrated homicide in the RTC.
Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty to said crime. Neither the court nor the prosecution was aware
that the victim had died two days earlier on account of his stab wounds. Because of his guilty plea, Noel was
convicted of frustrated homicide and meted the corresponding penalty. When the prosecution learned of the
victim's death, it filed within fifteen (15) days therefrom a motion to amend the information to upgrade the
charge from frustrated homicide to consummated homicide. Noel opposed the motion claiming that the
admission of the amended information would place him in double jeopardy. Resolve the motion with
reasons. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The amended information to consummated homicide from frustrated homicide does not place the accused in
double jeopardy. As provided in the second paragraph of Sec. 7, Rule 117,2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure,
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 when: (a) the graver offense developed
due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission constituting the former charge; or (b) the facts
constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered only after a plea was entered in the former
complaint or information. Here, when the plea to frustrated homicide was made, neither the court nor the
prosecution was aware that the victim had died two days earlier on account of his stab wounds.

Extradition (2004)
RP and State XX have a subsisting Extradition Treaty. Pursuant thereto RP's Secretary of Justice (SOJ) filed
a Petition for Extradition before the MM RTC alleging that Juan Kwan is the subject of an arrest warrant duly
issued by the proper criminal court of State XX in connection with a criminal case for tax evasion and fraud
before his return to RP as a balikbayan. Petitioner prays that Juan be extradited and delivered to the proper
authorities of State XX for trial, and that to prevent Juan's flight in the interim, a warrant for his immediate
arrest be issued. Before the RTC could act on the petition for extradition, Juan filed before it an urgent
motion, in sum praying (1) that SoJ's application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing and (2) that Juan be
allowed to post bail in the event the court would issue an arrest warrant. Should the court grant or deny
Juan's prayers? Reason. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:-
Under the Extradition Treaty and Law, the application of the Secretary of Justice for a warrant of arrest need
not be set for hearing, and Juan cannot be allowed to post bail if the court would issue a warrant of arrest. The
provisions in the Rules of Court on arrest and bail are not basically applicable. (Government of the United
States of America v. Puruganan, 389 SCRA 623 [2002])