Perez v CA; G.R. No. L-80838; 29 Nov 1988; 168 SCRA 236

FACTS:
Petitioner was charged with and convicted of the crime of consented abduction. He was later acquitted on appeal, the Court of Appeals ruling that he committed seduction and not abduction. Subsequently, private complainant filed another criminal complaint against him for qualified seduction.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the filing of a subsequent information arising from the same facts would place petitioner in double jeopardy.

RULING:
NO. Where two different laws (or articles of the same code) define two 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.

Petition is DENIED.

Tags: , ,

Category: Legal Chyme

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *