This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-07-01 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for punishment for the same offense. The rule of double jeopardy has a settled meaning in this jurisdiction. It means that when a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without the consent of the accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense. This principle is founded upon the law of reason, justice and conscience.[27] | |||||
|
2012-02-01 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| The rule on double jeopardy is one of the pillars of our criminal justice system. It dictates that when a person is charged with an offense, and the case is terminated - either by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without the consent of the accused - the accused cannot again be charged with the same or an identical offense.[69] This principle is founded upon the law of reason, justice and conscience.[70] It is embodied in the civil law maxim non bis in idem found in the common law of England and undoubtedly in every system of jurisprudence.[71] It found expression in the Spanish Law, in the Constitution of the United States, and in our own Constitution as one of the fundamental rights of the citizen,[72] viz: Article III - Bill of Rights | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Furthermore, it is also settled that amendment of an information to charge a more serious offense is permissible and does not constitute double jeopardy even where the accused was already arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charge, where the basis of the more serious charge did not exist, but comes as a subsequent event.[15] In this case the basis for the amendment was the psychosis of complainant which was determined after the filing of the information. | |||||
|
2001-01-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Preliminarily, petitioner's claim that the decision of the appellate court awarding indemnity placed him in double jeopardy is misplaced. The constitution provides that "no person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act."[10] When a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without the consent of the accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense.[11] This is double jeopardy. For double jeopardy to exist, the following elements must be established: (a) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as the first.[12] In the instant case, petitioner had once been placed in jeopardy by the filing of Criminal Case No. 066 and the jeopardy was terminated by his discharge. The judgment of acquittal became immediately final. Note, however, that what was elevated to the Court of Appeals by private respondents was the civil aspect of Criminal Case No. 066. Petitioner was not charged anew in CA-G.R. CV No. 19240 with a second criminal offense identical to the first offense. The records clearly show that no second criminal offense was being imputed to petitioner on appeal. In modifying the lower court's judgment, the appellate court did not modify the judgment of acquittal. Nor did it order the filing of a second criminal case against petitioner for the same offense. Obviously, therefore, there was no second jeopardy to speak of. Petitioner's claim of having been placed in double jeopardy is incorrect. | |||||