Just another mommy blogger from Asia’s Latin City

Tag archive

Constitutional Law 2 - page 2

Paulin v Judge Gimenez; G.R. No. 103323; 21 Jan 1993; 217 SCRA 386

in Legal Chyme by

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

People of Judge Villarama; G.R. No. 99287; 23 Jun 1992; 210 SCRA 246

in Legal Chyme by

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

People v Judge Pineda; G.R. No. 44205; 11 Feb 1993

in Legal Chyme by

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

People v Balisacan; G.R. No. L-26376; 31 Aug 1966; 17 SCRA 1119

in Legal Chyme by

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

People v Puno; G.R. Nos. 61864-69; 08 May 1992; 208 SCRA 550

in Legal Chyme by

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

People v Grospe; G.R. Nos. 74053-54; 20 Jan 1988; 157 SCRA 154

in Legal Chyme by

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

Icasiano v Sandiganbayan; G.R. No. 95642; 28 May 1992; 209 SCRA 377

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: The Tanodbayan conducted a preliminary investigation in connection with a complaint filed against petitioner for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The complaint was dismissed for lack of merit on the recommendation of the special prosecutor. Another complaint was lodged against him for the same violation and a corresponding information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioner was placed in double jeopardy. HELD: NO. The dismissal by the Tanodbayan of the first complaint cannot bar the present prosecution, since double jeopardy does not apply. A preliminary investigation is not a trial to which…

Keep Reading

People v Judge Nitafan; G.R. Nos. 81559-60; 06 Apr 1992; 207 SCRA 726

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: Respondent judge granted a motion to quash an information for estafa on the ground that the penal clause of Presidential Decree No. 115 on the Trust Receipts Law is inoperative because it does not actually punish an offense mala prohibita. ISSUE(S): Whether or not P.D. 115 is unconstitutional as it violates the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for non-payment of debt. HELD: NO. The Trust Receipts Law punishes the dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods to the prejudice of another regardless of whether the latter is the owner or not. The law does not…

Keep Reading

Lozano v Martinez; G.R. No. L-63419; 18 Dec 1986; 146 SCRA 323

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: Petitioners were charged with violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. They each filed with the trial courts a motion to quash the information against them on the ground that the acts charged did not constitute a crime, the statute being unconstitutional. ISSUE(S): Whether or not B.P. 22 is repugnant to the constitutional protection against imprisonment for debt. HELD: NO. The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the…

Keep Reading

Sura v Martin; G.R. No. L-25091; 29 Nov 1968; 26 SCRA 286

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS: Appellant was the losing party in a civil case for support. The trial court ordered his arrest and imprisonment for failure to pay such support. ISSUE(S): Whether or not his arrest and imprisonment were illegal. HELD: YES. The sheriff’s return shows that the judgment debtor was insolvent. The orders, in effect, authorized his imprisonment for debt in violation of the Constitution. Appealed orders are REVERSED.

Keep Reading

error: Content is protected !!
Go to Top