Claudine - page 13

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

FACTS: The Municipal Trial Court, acting on a motion of petitioners, dismissed the criminal case for grave threats against them. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order which the court granted. ISSUE(S): Whether or not, in reversing the dismissal of the criminal case against them, petitioners were placed in double jeopardy. HELD: NO. Where the dismissal was ordered upon motion or with the express assent of the accused, he is deemed to have waived his protection against double jeopardy. [The MTC decision dismissing the case is not an acquittal from the charge considering that no finding…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Private respondent was charged for illegal possession, custody and control of a regulated drug. He entered a plea of not guilty during his arraignment. After the prosecution has rested its case, private respondent filed a request to plead guilty to a lesser offense which respondent judge granted notwithstanding the opposition from prosecution. ISSUE(S): Whether or not a review of private respondent’s change of plea and his conviction to a lesser offense will violate his constitutional right against double jeopardy. HELD: NO. The right against double jeopardy applies in cases where both the fiscal and the offended party consent to…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Private respondent was charged with two counts of estafa, each one filed with separate courts. She sought the quashal of the latter charge on the apprehension that she is in danger of being condemned for an identical offense. Respondent judge granted the motion to quash. ISSUE(S): Whether or not private respondent was in danger of being convicted twice for the same criminal act. HELD: NO. The mere filing of two informations charging the same offense is not an appropriate basis for the invocation of double jeopardy since the first jeopardy has not yet set in by a previous conviction,…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Defendant-appellee was charged with homicide. Despite pleading guilty during his arraignment, he was allowed to present evidence to prove mitigating circumstances. On the basis of his testimony, the trial court rendered a decision acquitting the accused. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the People’s appeal would place the accused in double jeopardy. HELD: NO. Testifying to prove mitigating circumstances after pleading guilty to the charge had an effect of vacating accused plea of guilty. The trial court should have required him to plead anew on the charge, or at least directed that a new plea of not guilty be entered for…

Keep Reading

FACTS: The City Fiscal moved for the withdrawal of the six informations it filed with the City Court after filing the same with the Court of First Instance in compliance with a directive of the Ministry of Justice. The City Court subsequently issued an order dismissing one of the cases for lack of jurisdiction and all six cases before the CFI were consolidated for trial. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent-accused was placed in double jeopardy. HELD: NO. Since the first proceeding was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the State was not afforded the right to present its own evidence…

Keep Reading

FACTS: After proceeding with the trial against respondent-accused for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and the crime of estafa, respondent judge dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction. The People filed a petition for certiorari challenging the dismissal of the two criminal cases. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent-accused will be placed in double jeopardy if the dismissal will be set aside. HELD: NO. The questioned judgment was not an adjudication on the merits. It was a dismissal upon respondent judge’s erroneous conclusion that his court had no “territorial jurisdiction” over the cases. The dismissal being null and void, the…

Keep Reading