“DOUBLE JEOPARDY”

Section 21 of Article III of the Philippine Constitution states, “No person

shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.”
According to the Black’s Law Dictionary “Jeopardy” is synonymous with
words such as danger, hazard, or peril. In legal terms, Jeopardy is the danger
of conviction and punishment which the defendant in a criminal action incurs
when a valid indictment has been found, and a petit jury has been impaneled
and sworn to try the case and give a verdict.
Double Jeopardy as defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary is the term
used to a second trial for the same offense. It presupposes that in a previous
trial the case has attached a danger and such was terminated because, one,
the accused was either acquitted or convicted; and two, it was dismissed
without his express consent.
Except, in case or cases wherein the dismissal of such case or cases is
with an expressed consent or is initiated by the accused and subsequent
action will result in double jeopardy such as demurer to evidence and
unreasonable delay in the proceedings.
In demurer to evidence, if there was a dismissal on the merits of
insufficiency of evidence, it results in acquittal. Hence, double jeopardy will
apply even with consent or initiated by the accused.
In unreasonable delay in the proceedings resulting in violation of the
accused’s right to speedy trial, this comes to the same effect as to
adjudication on the merits, while it may not be dismissible on the ground of
double jeopardy, it is dismissible on violation of speedy trial. It must be noted
that if there was an adjudication on the merits that results in
dismissal/acquittal, it comes to effect that it was dismissed with prejudice.
Thus, one cannot file anymore a complaint as it would result in Double
Jeopardy.
Hence, any action based on the previous case or on the facts that
transpired in the previous case would bar anyone from prosecuting the same
accused for another offense. This is likewise a protection provided under the
1987 Philippine Constitution—Section 21 of Article III of the Constitution
which mandates, no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for
the same offense.

Mikhail Kim Crim Pro 1

F. Repancol Activity
 But such law is not absolute as there are some exceptions to such rule,
to wit; one, if the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising
from the same act or omission constituting the former charge; two, the facts
constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered only after
a plea was entered in the former complaint or information; third, the plea of
guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the prosecutor
and of the offended party except when offended party failed to appear
during such arraignment contained in section 7 of rule 117; And lastly, when
a court who rendered judgement to an accused was found incapable of
giving judgement thereof or that such court does not have jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the person of the accused.
In the case of People vs Acierto, the accused, Acierto—a court martial
reporter, in Camp Rizal, US military base, located Quezon City; was found
guilty by the US Army Court Martial of multiple counts of estafa and
falsification and was sentence to be confined in a prisoners’ branch and work
there for hard labor for sixty months. But the Commanding General reviewed
the case of Acierto, and he found out that the US Army Court does not have
territorial jurisdiction over Acierto’s case. And consequently, disapproved
Acierto’s sentence, upon the sole ground that this accused was not subject to
military law and without prejudice to his trial before a proper tribunal.
The following day, Acierto was handed over to Philippine authorities;
prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City.
Acierto, however, contended that his case was already tried by the US
Army Court and was already serving his sentence in the US prisoners’ base.
If Acierto’s case will be re-tried and re-judge by the Philippine courts, then
such action would constitute double jeopardy.
Since, the US court martial does not have jurisdiction over Acierto’s
case, the judgement and the sentence of the accused is Void Ab Initio—void
from the beginning. Only the Philippine courts can hear, try, and may render
judgement on Acierto’s case. And this was affirmed by Acierto during his
arraignment on the US Court Martial when he motioned to quash the
complaint against him for lack of jurisdiction. Hence, Acierto is estopped in
invoking double jeopardy. So, the acquisition of Jurisdiction by the Philippine
courts does not constitute Double Jeopardy.
In the case of People vs Abalos, the court ruled that when an accused
has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or

Mikhail Kim Crim Pro 1

F. Repancol Activity
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. From the above, the requirements
for double jeopardy to exist are as follows: (1) a valid information sufficient in
form and substance to sustain a conviction of the crime charged; (2) a court
of competent jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and had
pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was
dismissed without his express consent.
Here, Abalos was charged with violation of Section 3(h) of R.A. No.
3019 before the Sandiganbayan under an information dated July 15, 2010.
He was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty on August 10, 2010. On May 11,
2016, the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division issued the Assailed Decision
acquitting Abalos of the crime charged for failure of the prosecution to
establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This was affirmed by the
Sandiganbayan Special Fourth Division in its Assailed Resolution dated
September 29, 2016, which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Mikhail Kim Crim Pro 1

F. Repancol Activity
 The existence of double jeopardy in this case calls for the application of
the "finality-of-acquittal" rule, which, as the name implies, makes a judgment
of acquittal unappealable and immediately executory upon its promulgation.
The ratio decidendi can be explained in the case of People vs Velasco
where the court held: “The fundamental philosophy highlighting the finality
of an acquittal by the trial court cuts deep into "the humanity of the laws and
in a jealous watchfulness over the rights of the citizen, when brought in
unequal contest with the State x x x[.]" Thus Green expressed the concern
that "(t)he underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-
American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and
power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an
individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment,
expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of
anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though
innocent, he may be found guilty."
It is axiomatic that on the basis of humanity, fairness and justice, an
acquitted defendant is entitled to the right of repose as a direct consequence
of the finality of his acquittal. The philosophy underlying this rule
establishing the absolute nature of acquittals is "part of the paramount
importance criminal justice system attaches to the protection of the innocent
against wrongful conviction." The interest in the finality-of-acquittal rule,
confined exclusively to verdicts of not guilty, is easy to understand: it is a
need for "repose," a desire to know the exact extent of one's liability. With
this right of repose, the criminal justice system has built in a protection to
ensure that the innocent, even those whose innocence rests upon a jury's
leniency, will not be found guilty in a subsequent proceeding.”
The court further explains that, the "finality-of-acquittal" rule has one
exception: it is inapplicable where the Court which rendered the acquittal did
so with grave abuse of discretion that is strictly limited whenever there is a
violation of the prosecution's right to due process such as when it is denied
the opportunity to present evidence or where the trial is sham or when there
is a mistrial, rendering the judgment of acquittal void.”
Another example of an exception to the finality-of-acquittal rule is the
case of Galman v. Sandiganbayan where the Court remanded the case to the
trial court because the previous trial conducted was a mockery. The unique
facts surrounding the Galman case constitute the very narrow exception to
the application of the right against double jeopardy. Hence, in order for the
Mikhail Kim Crim Pro 1
F. Repancol Activity
CA to take cognizance of the certiorari petition, AAA and the prosecution
must have clearly demonstrated that the RTC blatantly abused its authority
to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.
There are two types of double jeopardy: There is double jeopardy for
the same offense, when the same person is being tried and judge for the
same offense/infraction. And there is double jeopardy when an act is
punished by a law and an ordinance, when the same person is tried and
being judge for two different crime/infraction— one punishable by the RPC or
the SPL and one punishable by ordinances.
For Double Jeopardy to properly be invoked, it must meet the following
requisites: a first jeopardy must have attached; the first jeopardy must have
been validly terminated; and the second jeopardy must be for the same
offense or the second offense necessarily includes or is necessarily included
in the offense charged in the first information, or is an attempt to commit the
same or a frustration thereof.
The Requisites for first jeopardy to attach: there is a valid indictment;
the indictment is filed before a competent court having jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the person of the accused; and during the arraignment a
valid plea is entered; and the accused has been convicted or acquitted, or
the case dismissed or otherwise validly terminated without his express
consent. The effect of 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 found in Section 7,
Rule 117.
Double Jeopardy does not apply in the following circumstances:
administrative cases, preliminary investigation, when the same criminal act
gives rise to two or more separate and distinct offenses, when the first
offense was committed under the RPC and the second was committed under
a special penal law, when two offenses are punished by two separate penal
laws, and themere filing of two information charging the same offense when
there is not yet a conviction, acquittal, or termination without consent of any
of the two cases.
Section 21 of Article III of the Constitution that mandates that, no
person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense is

Mikhail Kim Crim Pro 1

F. Repancol Activity
not an absolute rule. Hence, an accused who was acquitted or convicted
after a full-blown trial can still be reopened by motion for reconsideration or
an appeal to review by the prosecution depending on the circumstances as
double jeopardy has certain requisites to be met, exceptions to such rules,
and circumstances that double jeopardy does not apply. So, if there are
irregularities or injustices in the final decision of a case, one can avail of
certain remedies such as appeal the matters to higher court or file a motion
to reconsider such matters. Quoting Albert Einstein, in matters of truth and
justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues
concerning the treatment of people are all the same. The courts are made to
seek the truth and apply justice. In the existence of irregularities or injustice
the courts are there to give remedy to each and every people of our country.

Mikhail Kim Crim Pro 1

F. Repancol Activity