December 2017

FACTS: Private respondent was charged in 1989 with a violation of Republic Act 3019 for acts allegedly committed in 1976. The Sandiganbayan granted his motion to quash on the ground of prescription. [Write a little the passage of BP 195, increasing prescription from 10 years to 15.] ISSUE(S): Whether or not Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, an amendatory law which increased prescription from 10 years to 15, is applicable to the case at bar. HELD: NO. To apply, BP 195 to private respondent would make it an ex post facto law for it would alter his situation to his disadvantage by…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Private respondents were among those charged with violations of the Anti-Subversion Act which outlawed the Communist Party of the Philippines and other “subversive associations,” and punishes any person who “knowingly, willfully and by overt acts affiliates himself with, becomes or remains a member” of the Party or of any other similar “subversive” organization. Respondent judge ruled that Act as unconstitutional for being a bill of attainder. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the Act is indeed a bill of attainder. HELD: NO. It is only when a statute applies either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group…

Keep Reading

FACTS: While petitioner and several of his co-accused were appealing their conviction for multiple counts of estafa, Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 was passed amending, among others, Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019. Said amendatory law imposes suspension pendent lite of any public officer accused of offenses involving fraudulent use of public funds. ISSUE(S): Whether or not Section 13 of RA 3019, as amended, violates the constitutional prohibition against the enactment of ex post facto law. HELD: NO. Suspension from the employment or public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings is not a penalty because it…

Keep Reading

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. HELD: 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…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner Robert Hermosa and private respondent were charged with the crime of qualified theft of a large rubber tire. After their arraignment but before the prosecution could commence, the original judge discharged petitioner Hermosa from the information on the instance of petitioner Bogo-Medellin that he be utilized as a state witness against his co-accused. Before the hearing, original judge was replaced by respondent judge who ordered the reinstatement of petitioner Hermosa as co-accused in the case for qualified theft. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the reinstatement of petitioner as co-accused would place him in double jeopardy considering that his discharge…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner was charged with the crime of libel. At the instance of the City Prosecutor upon orders of the Department of Justice, the information was dismissed even before its arraignment. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the private complainant’s appeal of the dismissal would place petitioner in double jeopardy. HELD: NO. Appeal against the order of dismissal was not foreclosed by the rule of double jeopardy, said order having been issued before arraignment. Petition is DENIED.

Keep Reading

FACTS: Defendant-appellee was charged with the crime of rape. Respondent judge dismissed the case, upon the motion of the defense, ruling that “the failure of the complaint filed by the offended party to allege that the acts committed by the accused were with ‘lewd designs’ does not give this Court jurisdiction to try the case.” ISSUE(S): Whether or not prosecution’s appeal of the dismissal placed the accused in double jeopardy. HELD: NO. The controverted dismissal was predicated on the erroneous contention of the accused that the complaint was defective and such infirmity affected the jurisdiction of the court a quo,…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Respondent judge dismissed the information charging private respondent with the crime of homicide and serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence after the prosecution presented its evidence and rested its case. ISSUE(S): Whether or not private respondent will be placed in double jeopardy if the dismissal of the case is reversed. HELD: YES. A dismissal ordered after the termination of the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution has the force and effect of an acquittal. Such a dismissal cannot be appealed from because to do so would do violence to the constitutional provision on double jeopardy. Petition for certiorari…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Private respondents were charged with falsification by private individuals and use of falsified document. After the prosecution had presented its evidence and rested its case, private respondents moved to dismiss the charge against them on the ground that the evidence presented was not sufficient to establish their guilt beyond reasonable ground. Respondent court dismissed the case principally on the ground that the acts committed do not constitute the crime of falsification as charged. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the reversal of the dismissal will place private respondents in double jeopardy. HELD: YES. It is true that the criminal case of…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Three separate informations for grave oral defamation were filed against the accused. After pleading not guilty to all three informations upon her arraignment, she moved to quash the same which the trial judge granted. The prosecution challenged the dismissal. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the reversal of the dismissal and reinstatement of the cases would place the accused in double jeopardy. HELD: NO. It was the accused herself who moved to quash the charges against her on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction. The dismissal was made not only with her express consent but, indeed, upon her…

Keep Reading