Cuizon vs CA 289 scra 159

Facts
Almario vs CA 355 SCRA 1

Facts
The case filed against herein petitioner was dismissed upon motion of the
petitioner for failure to prosecute and right to a speedy trial. However, the trial court allowed
reconsideration of petitioner’s case on the ground that the first order of dismissal did not result in
acquittal since the right to speedy trial was not violated, and its dismissal has been made upon
the motion of the accused. Such Order (of reconsideration of the case) was upheld by the Court
of Appeals.
Issue
Whether or not in petitioner's cases, double jeopardy had set in so that petitioner's
constitutional right against such jeopardy had been violated.
Ruling
Jeopardy attaches only (1) upon a valid indictment, (2) before a competent court,
(3) after arraignment, (4) when a valid plea has been entered, and (5) when the defendant was
convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express
consent of the accused.
In the cases at bar, the order of dismissal based on a violation of the right to speedy trial
was made upon motion by counsel for petitioner before the trial court. It was made at the
instance of the accused before the trial court, and with his express consent. The dismissal of a
criminal case resulting in acquittal made with the express consent of the accused or upon his own
motion will not place the accused in double jeopardy. However, this rule admits of two
exceptions: (1) insufficiency of evidence and (2) denial of the right to speedy trial. Double
jeopardy may attach when the proceedings have been prolonged unreasonably, in violation of the
accused's right to speedy trial.
Petitioner’s right to speedy trial was not transgressed. Hence, the exception to the fifth
element of double jeopardy was not met. The trial court's initial order of dismissal was upon
motion of petitioner's counsel, hence made with the express consent of petitioner. Despite the
reconsideration of said order, double jeopardy did not attach.
Manantan vs CA 350 SCRA 387

Facts
Petitioner George Manantan was acquitted by the trial court of homicide through
reckless imprudence without a ruling on his civil liability based on reasonable ground. On appeal
from the civil aspect of the judgment in Criminal Case No. 066, the appellate court found
petitioner Manantan civilly liable and ordered him to indemnify private respondents Marcelino
Nicolas and Maria Nicolas.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the decision of the Court of Appeals is a violation of the petitioner’s right
against double jeopardy.

RULING:
Petitioner’s claim that the decision of the appellate court awarding indemnity placed him in
double jeopardy is misplaced.
For double jeopardy to exist, the following elements must be established: (a) a first jeopardy
must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have terminated; and (3) the
second jeopardy must be for the same offense as the first.
In the instant case, petitioner had once been placed in jeopardy by the filing of criminal case
and the jeopardy was terminated by his discharge. The judgment of acquittal became
immediately final. Note, however, that what was elevated to the Court of Appeals by private
respondents was the civil aspect of the criminal case. Petitioner was not charged anew with a
second criminal offense identical to the first offense. The records clearly show that no second
criminal offense was being imputed to petitioner on appeal. In modifying the lower court’s
judgment, the appellate court did not modify the judgment of acquittal. Nor did it order the
filing of a second criminal case against petitioner for the same offense. Obviously, therefore,
there was no second jeopardy to speak of. Petitioner’s claim of having been placed in double
jeopardy is incorrect.
People of the Philippines vs Feliciano October 10, 2001

Facts
Accused, Carlos Feliciano and Rodel Dela Cruz security guards of Kingsmen Building in
Kalibo, Aklanrun after a non-paying customer and rented a tricycle. In between Ceres and
Libacao terminals, Feliciano instructed Dela Cruz to stop and wait for the customer they were
after. As they passed Banga, they saw a woman walking alone, Dela Cruz stopped the vehicle
and Feliciano draw his gun and held on the woman’s neck and poked it on her face. He was
shocked by what Feliciano did and told him he doesn’t want to be involved and Feliciano held
his gun to Dela Cruz if he won’t drive them back to the market since he is already involved.

Issue
Whether or not the decision of discharging an accused and become a state witness is
against double jeopardy

Ruling
It is widely accepted that the discharge of an accused to become a state witness has the
same effect as an acquittal. The impropriety of the discharge would not have any effect on the
competency and quality of the testimony, nor would it have the consequence of withdrawing his
immunity from prosecution. A discharge, if granted at the stage where jeopardy has already
attached, is equivalent to an acquittal, such that further prosecution would be tantamount to the
state reneging on its part of the agreement and unconstitutionally placing the state witness in
doubt jeopardy. The rule is not always irreversible. In an instance where the discharged accused
fails to fulfill his part of the bargain and refuses to testify against his co-accused, the benefit of
his discharge can be withdrawn and he can again be prosecuted for the same offense.
Merciales vs CA 379 scra 345

Facts
Petitioner is the mother of the victim in a criminal case of rape with homicide. The case
was ordered dismissed by the trial court based on a demurrer to evidence filed by private
respondents, accused therein. Petitioner filed a petition to the Court of Appeals (CA) to annual
said order of the trial court, however, CA denied her petition. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition violates the right of the accused against double jeopardy.

RULING:
The dismissal of the case was invalid for lack of a fundamental prerequisite, that is, due
process. In rendering the judgment of dismissal, the trial judge in this case acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction, for a judgment which is void for lack of due process is equivalent to
excess or lack of jurisdiction. The petition does not violate the right of the accused against
double jeopardy. The second element of double jeopardy was not met- the court has jurisdiction.
Potot vs People of the Philippines 383 scra 449

Facts
Petitioner was charged and convicted of the crime of homicide. He filed a manifestation
that he is not appealing its decision convicting him of homicide and that he is ready to serve his
sentence. The wife of the victim, filed through counsel, a motion for reconsideration praying that
the decision be set aside and that the case be heard again because “there were irregularities
committed before and during the trial which caused miscarriage of justice.” The trial court
granted the motion.

Issue
Whether or not the order of the trial court remanding the case to the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor placed the herein petitioner in double jeopardy.

RULING
The assailed order of the trial court violates the petitioner’s constitutional right against
double jeopardy. Such right prohibits any subsequent prosecution of any person for a crime of
which he has previously been acquitted or convicted. The objective is to set the effects of the
first prosecution forever at rest, assuring the accused that he shall not thereafter be subjected to
the peril and anxiety of a second charge against him for the same offense.
To invoke the defense of double jeopardy, the following requisites must be present: (1) a
valid complaint or information; (2) the court has jurisdiction to try the case; (3) the accused has
pleaded to the charge; and (4) he has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. These requisites have been
established in the case of the herein petitioner.
People vs Astudillo 401 scra 723

Facts
Appellants were convicted by the trial court of the crime of murder qualified by abuse of
superior strength. Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration contending that the prosecution
failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and, assuming that it did, the qualifying
circumstance of abuse of superior strength, not having been alleged in the information, cannot be
appreciated against them. Appellants’ motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated
July 13, 1998. However, an Amended Decision was rendered where the phrase “abuse of
superior strength” was replaced with “TREACHERY” in the body of the Decision.

Issue
Whether or not the amended decision violates appellants’ right against double jeopardy.

Ruling
The protection against double jeopardy may be waived by the accused. When the
accused concents to the filing of a motion for reconsideration or modification, double jeopardy
cannot be invoked because the accused waived his right not to be placed therein by filing such
motion. His motion gives the court an opportunity to rectify its errors or to re-evaluate its
assessment of facts and conclusions of law and make them conformable with the statute
applicable to the case in the new judgment it has to render. The raison d’etre is to afford the
court a chance to correct its own mistakes and to avoid unnecessary appeals from being taken. In
effect, a motion for reconsideration or modification filed by or with consent of the accused
renders the entire evidence open for the review of the trial court without, however, conducting
further proceedings, such as the taking of additional proof.
Therefore, appellants cannot dictate upon the trial court which aspects of the judgment of
conviction should be reviewed. Having filed a timely motion for reconsideration asking the
court to acquit, or in the alternative, convict them of the lesser offense of homicide, appellants
waived the defense of double jeopardy and effectively placed the evidence taken at the trial open
for the review of the trial court.

AGNES C. MEJICA
JD – 1