Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ATTY. REYNALDO P. DIMAYACYAC v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 206442 2015-07-01	JOVITO CANCERAN v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
To raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.[28]
	GR No. 195032 2013-02-20	ISABELO A. BRAZA v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment 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. This constitutionally mandated right is procedurally buttressed by Section 17 of Rule 117[28] of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. To substantiate a claim for double jeopardy, the accused has the burden of demonstrating the following requisites: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as in the first.[29] As to the first requisite, the first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment, (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused was acquitted or convicted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.[30] The test for the third element is whether one offense is identical with the other or is an attempt to commit it or a frustration thereof; or whether the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information.
	GR No. 168918 2009-03-02	PEOPLE v. HERMENEGILDO DUMLAO Y CASTILIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.[24] The first jeopardy attaches attaches only (1) upon a valid indictment; (2) before a competent court; (3) after arraignment; (4) when a valid plea has been entered; and (5) when the defendant was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.[25]
	GR No. 154155 2008-08-06	OMBUDSMAN v. BEN C. JURADO REYES, R.T., J.
any complaint or made to undergo any investigation. As held in Dimayacyac v. Court of Appeals:[14]
	GR NO. 156408 2005-01-31	ANDRES S. SUERO v. PEOPLE PANGANIBAN, J.
We hold that the instant case does not constitute double jeopardy, for which the following requisites must concur: (1) the first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.[8]
	GR Nos. 146368-69 2004-10-18	MADELEINE MENDOZA-ONG v. SANDIGANBAYAN QUISUMBING, J.
The right to speedy disposition of cases, like the right to speedy trial, is violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays.[4] In the determination of whether said right has been violated, particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.[5] The conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant, the length of the delay, the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay are the factors to consider and balance.[6] A mere mathematical reckoning of time involved would not be sufficient.[7]