Definition Of Double Jeopardy
Sec. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. – When an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information.
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
(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.
WHAT IS JEOPARDY AND WHAT IS THE RULE ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
> Jeopardy is the peril in which a person is placed when he is regularly charged with a crime before a tribunal properly organized and competent to try him
> The rule on double jeopardy means that when a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminate either by conviction or acquittal, or in any other manner without the consent of the
accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense
WHAT ARE THE 2 KINDS OF JEOPARDY?
1. That no person shall be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense
2. 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
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR THE ACCUSED TO RAISE THE DEFENSE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
1. A first jeopardy must have validly attached prior to the second
2. The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated
3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense or the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information or is an attempt to commit the offense or a
frustration thereof
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR THE FIRST JEOPARDY TO ATTACH?
1. There is a valid complaint or information
2. Court of competent jurisdiction
3. Arraignment
4. Plea
5. The defendant is acquitted, convicted, or the case was dismissed or terminated without his express consent
N.B: The judgment should not only be final and executory but also be promulgated before there could be a valid jeopardy.
IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THE FOREGOING RULE?
> There are two exceptions to the foregoing rule, and double jeopardy may attach even if the dismissal of the case was with the consent of the accused—
1. If there is insufficiency of evidence to support the charge against him, and
2. Where there has been an unreasonable delay in the proceedings, in violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial
A CRIME WAS COMMITTED IN MAKATI. THE CASE WAS FILED IN PASAY. WHEN THE PROSECUTION REALIZED THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED IN MAKATI, IT FILED THE CASE IN MAKATI. CAN THE ACCUSED INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
> No, the court in Pasay has no jurisdiction, therefore, the accused was in no danger of being placed in jeopardy
> The first jeopardy didn’t validly attach
FOR PURPOSES OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY, WHEN IS A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION VALID?
> A complaint or information is valid if it can support a judgment of conviction
> If the complaint or information is not valid, it would violate the right of the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
> If he is convicted under this complaint or information, the conviction is null and void and hence there is no first jeopardy
X WAS CHARGED WITH QUALIFIED THEFT. X MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND OF INSUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION. THE CASE WAS DISMISSED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PROSECUTION FILED A CORRECTED INFORMATION. CAN X PLEAD DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
> No, the first jeopardy didn’t attach because the first information was not valid
X WAS CHARGED WITH THEFT. DURING THE TRIAL, THE PROSECUTION WAS ABLE TO PROVE ESTAFA. X WAS ACQUITTED OF THEFT. CAN X BE PROSECUTED FOR ESTAFA LATER WITHOUT PLACING HIM IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
> Yes
> For jeopardy to attach, the basis is the crime charged in the complaint or information, and the one proved at the trial
> In this case, the crime charged in the first information was theft. X was therefore placed in jeopardy of being convicted of theft. Since estafa is not an offense which is included or necessarily includes theft, X can still be prosecuted for estafa without placing him in double jeopardy
THE ESTAFA CASE AGAINST C WAS DISMISSED BUT THE DISMISSAL CONTAINED A RESERVATION OF THE RIGHT TO FILE ANOTHER ACTION. CAN ANOTHER ESTAFA CASE BE FILED AGAINST X WITHOUT PLACING HIM IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
> Yes
> To raise the defense of double jeopardy, the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated
> This means that there must have been either a conviction or acquittal, or an unconditional dismissal of the case
> A provisional dismissal, such as this one, doesn’t validly terminate the first jeopardy
NOTE: in the second kind of jeopardy, the first jeopardy can validly only be terminated either by conviction or acquittal and not by the dismissal of the case without the express consent of the accused.
X WAS CHARGED WITH THEFT. ON THE DAY OF THE TRIUAL, THE PROSECUTOR AND THE WITNESSES FAILED TO APPEAR. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED MOVED TO DISMISS THE CASE. THE COURT DISMISSED THE CASE PROVISIONALLY. SUBSEQUENTLY X WAS CHARGED WITH THEFT AGAIN. CAN X INVOKE JEOPARDY?
> No, the case was dismissed upon motion of counsel for the accused, so it wasn’t dismissed without the express consent
> Moreover, the dismissal was only provisional, which is not a valid termination of the first jeopardy
> In order to validly terminate the jeopardy, the dismissal must have been unconditional
X WAS CHARGED WITH SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES. ON HIS MOTION, THE CASE WAS DISMISSED DURING TRIAL. ANOTHER CASE FOR ASSAULT UPON A PERSON IN AUTHORITY WAS FILED AGAINST HIM. CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
> No, the first jeopardy wasn’t terminated through either conviction, acquittal, or dismissal without the express consent of X
> The first case was dismissed upon the motion of X himself
> Therefore, he cannot invoke double jeopardy
X WAS CHARGED WITH THEFT. DURING TRIAL, THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT THE OFFENSE COMMITTED WAS ACTUALLY ESTAFA. WHAT SHOULD THE JUDGE DO?
> The judge should order the substitution of the complaint for theft with a new one charging estafa
> Upon filing of the substituted complaint, the judge should dismiss the original complaint. If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, the
court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR A VALID SUBSTITUTION OF A COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION?
1. No judgment has been rendered
2. The accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or any other offense necessarily included in the offense charged
3. The accused will not be placed in double jeopardy
X WAS CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE. ON THE FIRST DAY OF TRIAL, THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO APPEAR. THE COURT DISMISSED THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO SPEEDY TRIAL. X WAS LATER CHARGED WITH MURDER. CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
> No, the first jeopardy was not validly terminated
> The judge who has not dismissed the case on the ground of violation of the right of X to speedy trial committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case after the prosecution failed to
appear once
> This is not a valid dismissal because it deprives the prosecution of due process
> When the judge gravely abuses the discretion in dismissing a case, the dismissal is not valid
Therefore, X cannot invoke double jeopardy
DISTINGUISH ACQUITTAL AND DISMISSAL
> Acquittal is a discharge after a trial, or an attempt to have one, upon the merits. It is always on the merits. The accused is acquitted because the evidence doesn’t show his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
> On the other hand, dismissal is when the case is terminated otherwise upon the merits thereof, as when the dismissal is based on the allegation that the court has no jurisdiction, either upon the subject matter or the territory, or that the complaint or information is not valid or sufficient, or upon any ground that doesn’t decide the merits of the issue as to whether the accused is
or isn’t guilty of the offense charged
WHEN IS A DISMISSAL OF THE CASE, EVEN WITH EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED, EQUIVALENT TO AN ACQUITTAL, WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE A BAR TO A SECOND JEOPARDY?
> For a dismissal to be a bar under double jeopardy, it must have the effect of acquittal
> As a general rule, dismissal upon motion of the accused or his counsel negates the application of double jeopardy because the motion of the accused amounts to an express consent
> However, such a dismissal even with the express consent of the accused may constitute a bar to double jeopardy in the following cases
1. Where there is insufficiency of evidence given by the prosecution to support the charge against him
2. Where there has been an unreasonable delay in the proceedings, in violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial
> Consequently, the dismissal amounts to an acquittal and would bar a second jeopardy in the cases below
1. Where the dismissal is based on a demurrer to evidence filed by the accused after the prosecution has rested, which has the effect of a judgment on the merits and operates as an acquittal
2. Where the dismissal is made, also on motion of the accused, because of the denial of his right to a speedy trial, which is in effect a failure to prosecute
WHAT IS MEANT BY NOLLE PROSEQUI? IS IT THE SAME AS AN ACQUITTAL?
> It is the discontinuance of a criminal procedure by the prosecuting officer, with the consent of the owner
> A nolle prosequi or dismissal entered before the accused is placed on trial and before he is called on to plead is not equivalent to an acquittal and doesn’t bar a subsequent prosecution for the same
offense
> It is not a final disposition of the case
> Rather it partakes of the nature of a non-suit or discontinuance in a civil suit and leaves the matter in the same condition in which it was before the commencement of the prosecution
MAY THE COURT DISMISS THE CASE ON MOTION NOLLE PROSEQUI?
> The trial court may dismiss a case on a motion nolle prosequi if the accused is not brought to trial within the prescribed time and is deprived of his right to speedy trial or disposition of the case on
account of unreasonable or capricious delay caused by the prosecution
> People v. Espidol doctrine
WHY IS THERE A REQUIREMENT FOR IT TO BE CAPRICIOUS AND UNREASONABLE?
> There are some delays of the prosecution which are not capricious and unreasonable
> It may be caused by some other valid reasons—prejudicial question, new evidence or witnesses, etc.
WHEN A CASE IS DISMISSED UPON MOTION OF THE ACCUSED, MAY HE STILL BE PROSECUTED FOR THE SAME OFFENSE?
> While there have been conflicting rulings of the SC, the prevailing doctrine is that the accused can still be prosecuted for the same offense if he moves to dismiss on the grounds of lack of
jurisdiction, or insufficiency of complaint or information because he is deemed to have waived his right against a second jeopardy, or that he is estopped from maintaining that the court had no
jurisdiction or that the complaint wasn’t sufficient
WHEN WILL DISMISSAL OR TERMINATION OF THE FIRST CASE NOT BAR A SECOND JEOPARDY?
1. The dismissal must be sought by the defendant personally or through his counsel
2. Such dismissal must not be on the merits and must not necessarily amount to an acquittal
BEFORE THE PROSECUTION COULD FINISH PRESENTING EVIDENCE, THE ACCUSED FILED A DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE. THE COURT GRANTED THE MOTION AND DISMISSED THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION. CAN THE ACCUSED BE PROSECUTED FOR THE SAME OFFENSE AGAIN?
> Yes. There was no double jeopardy because the court has exceeded its jurisdiction in dismissing the case even before the prosecution could finish presenting evidence
> It denied the prosecution of its right to due process. Because of this, the dismissal is null and void and cannot constitute a proper basis for a claim of double jeopardy
THE PROSECUTOR FILED AN INFORMATION AGAINST X FOR HOMICIDE. BEFORE X COULD BE ARRAIGNED, THE PROSECUTOR WITHDREW THE INFORMATION WITHOUT NOTICE TO X. THE PROSECUTOR THEN FILED AN INFORMATION AGAINST X FOR MURDER. CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
> No, there was no arraignment yet under the first information
> Therefore, the first jeopardy didn’t attach. The withdrawal or dismissal of the case before arraignment is not a bar to the filing of a new information for the same offense.
> There is no double jeopardy where there is yet no arraignment
> A nolle prosequi or dismissal entered before the accused is placed on trial and before he pleads is not equivalent to an acquittal and doesn’t bar a subsequent prosecution for the same offense
IF THE ACCUSED FAILS TO OBJECT TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE CASE FILED BY THE PROSECUTION, IS HE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE DISMISSAL? CAN HE STILL INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
> No, silence doesn’t mean consent to the dismissal
> If the accused fails to object or acquiesces to the dismissal of the case, he can still invoke double jeopardy, since the dismissal was
still without his express consent.
> He is deemed to have waived his right against double jeopardy if he expressly consents to the dismissal
X WAS CHARGED WITH MURDER. THE PROSECUTION MOVED TO DISMISS THE CASE. COUNSEL FOR X WROTE THE WORDS “NO OBJECTION” AT THE BOTTOM OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND SIGNED IT. CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY LATER ON?
> No, X is deemed to have expressly consented to the dismissal of the case when his counsel wrote “no objection” at the bottom of the motion to dismiss
> Since the case was dismissed with his express consent, X cannot invoke double jeopardy
X WAS CHARGED WITH MURDER. AFTER THE PROSECUTION PRESENTED ITS EVIDENCE, X FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. THE COURT DISMISSED THE CASE. THE PROSECUTION APPEALED? CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
> No, X cannot invoke double jeopardy
> The dismissal was upon his own motion so it was with his express consent
> Since the dismissal was with his express consent, he is deemed to have waived his right against double jeopardy
> The only time when a dismissal, even with the express consent of the accused, will bar a double jeopardy is if it is based either on insufficiency of evidence or denial of the right to speedy trial
> These are not grounds invoked by X so he cannot claim double jeopardy
X WAS CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE. X MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION. BELIEVING IT HAD NO JURISDICTION, THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE CASE. SINCE THE COURT, IN FACT, HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE, THE PROSECUTION FILED ANOTHER CASE IN THE SAME COURT. CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
> No, X is estopped from claiming that he was in danger of being convicted during the first case, since he had himself earlier alleged that the court had no jurisdiction
X WAS CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE. THE COURT, BELIEVED IT HAD NO JURISDICTION, MOTU PROPIO DISMISSED THE CASE. THE PROSECUTION APPEALED, CLAIMING THAT THE COURT, IN FACT HAD JURISDICTION. CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
> Yes, when the trial court has jurisdiction but mistakenly dismisses the complaint or information on the ground of lack of it, the dismissal wasn’t at the request of the accused, the dismissal is not
appealable because it will place the accused in double jeopardy
X WAS CHARGED WITH RAPE. X MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE LEWD DESIGNS. THE COURT DISMISSED THE CASE. LATER, ANOTHER CASE FOR RAPE WAS FILED AGAINST X. CAN X INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
> No, X is estopped from claiming that he could have been convicted under the first complaint
> He himself moved for the dismissal on the ground that the complaint was insufficient
> He cannot change his position and now claim that he was in danger of being convicted under the complaint
X WAS CHARGED WITH MURDER, ALONG WITH THREE OTHER PEOPLE. X WAS DISCHARGED AS A STATE WITNESS. CAN X BE PROSECUTED AGAIN FOR THE SAME OFFENSE?
> It depends
> As a general rule, an order discharging an accused as state witness amounts to an acquittal, and he is barred from being prosecuted again for the same offense
> However, if he fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement constituting the basis for the discharge, he can be prosecuted again
CAN A PERSON ACCUSED OF ESTAFA BE CHARGED WITH VIOLATION OF BP22 WITHOUT PLACING HIM IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
> Yes. Even if the same transaction is involved, the same act may violate two or more provisions of criminal law and the prosecution under one will not bar the prosecution under another
> Where 2 different laws defines 2 crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other, although both offenses arise from the same facts, if each crime involves some important act which is not an essential element of the other
X INSTALLED A JUMPER CABLE WHICH ALLOWED HIM TO REDUCE HIS ELECTRICITY BILL. HE WAS PROSECUTED AND SUBSEQUENTLY CONVICTED FOR A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED INSTALLATION OF A DEVICE. CAN HE STILL BE PROSECUTED FOR THEFT?
> No, under the second type of jeopardy, when an act is punished by law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under one will bar a prosecution under the other
> The constitutional protection against double jeopardy is available as long as the acts which constitute or have given rise to the first offense under a municipal ordinance are the same acts which
constitute or have given rise to the offense charged under the statute
WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY? WHEN CAN THE ACCUSED BE CHARGED WITH A SECOND OFFENSE WHICH NECESSARILY INCLUDES THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE FORMER COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION?
> 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 circumstances:
o The graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission constituting the former charge
o The facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered only after a plea was entered in the former complaint or information
o The plea of guilty to a lesser offense was made without the consent of the prosecutor or offended party except if the offended party fails to appear at arraignment
WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING EVENT?
> Where after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the defendant is responsible, which changes the character of the offense and, together with the facts existing at the time,
constitutes a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the second offense.
X WAS CHARGED WITH FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE. THERE WAS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE VICTIM WAS GOING TO DIE. X WAS ARRAIGNED. BEFORE TRIAL, THE VICTIM DIED. CAN X BE CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE?
> It depends.
> If the death of the victim can be traced to the acts of X, and the victim didn’t contribute to his death with his negligence, X can be charged with homicide
> This is a supervening fact
> But if the act of X wasn’t the proximate cause of death, he cannot be charged with homicide
X WAS CHARGED WITH RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO HOMICIDE AND WAS ACQUITTED. THE HEIRS OF THE VICTIM APPEALED THE CIVIL ASPECT OF THE JUDGMENT. X CLAIMS THAT THE APPEAL WILL PLACE HIM IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY. IS X CORRECT?
> No, there was no second jeopardy. What was elevated on appeal was the civil aspect of the case, not the criminal aspect.
> The extinction of criminal liability whether by a prescription or by the bar of double jeopardy doesn’t carry with it the extinction of civil liability arising from the offense charged
X IN A CRIMINAL CASE WAS SENTENCED AND REQUIRED TO PAY CIVIL LIABILITY. CAN THE OFFENDED PARTY APPEAL THE CIVIL LIABILITY?
> Yes, if there would be appeal for a criminal case, it must pertain solely on the civil liability.
> An appeal with regard the criminal aspect would violate the accused’s right against double jeopardy.
> The reason why the offended party can appeal the civil aspect is that double jeopardy only attaches to the criminal aspect and not the civil aspect. The victim or offended party in the criminal case
is the State while in its civil aspect, the private offended party.
X WAS CHARGED WITH MURDER AND WAS ACQUITTED. CAN THE PROSECUTION APPEAL THE ACQUITTAL?
> No, the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal, since it would place the accused in double jeopardy.
> A judgment of acquittal in criminal proceedings is final and unappealable whether it happens at the trial court level or before the Court of Appeals
> Even if the decision of acquittal was erroneous, the prosecution cannot still appeal the decision as it would put the accused in double jeopardy.
A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IS FINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE WHETHER IT HAPPENS AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL OR BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS
WHEN CAN THE PROSECUTION APPEAL DESPITE THE DISMISSAL OR TERMINATION OF THE CASE?
> As a general rule, the dismissal or termination of the case after arraignment and plea of the defendant to a valid information shall be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense, an attempt
or frustration thereof, or one which necessarily includes or is included in the previous offense.
> However, the prosecution may appeal the order of dismissal in the following instances:
1. If the dismissal of the first case was made upon motion or with the express consent of the defendant, unless the grounds are insufficiency of evidence or denial of the right to speedy trial
2. If the dismissal is not an acquittal or based upon consideration of the evidence or of the merits of the case,
3. And the question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely legal so that should the dismissal be found incorrect, the case would have to be remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE APPEAL OF THE ACCUSED?
> If the accused appeals, he waives his right against double jeopardy
> The case is thrown wide open for review and a penalty higher than that of the original conviction could be imposed upon him
WHAT SHOULD THE ACCUSED DO IF THE COURT DENIES THE MOTION TO QUASH ON THE GROUND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
> He should plea not guilty and reiterate his defense of former jeopardy
> In case of conviction, he should appeal from the judgment on the ground of double jeopardy
CAN AN ACCUSED RAISE THE DEFENSE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS?
> No, jeopardy doesn’t attach. Remember the requisites for jeopardy. Jeopardy only attaches in criminal proceedings.
