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 accuseds 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 didnt 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 didnt 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, doesnt 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
wasnt 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 wasnt 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 doesnt 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 doesnt decide the merits of the issue as to whether the accused is
or isnt 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 accuseds 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 doesnt 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 reasonsprejudicial 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 wasnt 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 didnt 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 doesnt 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 doesnt 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 wasnt 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 didnt
contribute to his death with his negligence, X can be charged with homicide
>
This is a supervening fact
>
But if the act of X wasnt 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 doesnt 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 accuseds
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 doesnt attach. Remember the requisites for jeopardy.
Jeopardy only attaches in criminal proceedings.