8/12/2019 consti 2 sec 18-22
1/15
1
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights)3rdExam Transcription
SY 2013-2014
Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
(Sec. 21)
General Rule: No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for
the same offense.
If an act is punished by a law or an ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to anotherprosecution for the same act.
Double jeopardy prohibits the second prosecution of any
person for a crime for which he has been previously
convicted or acquitted.
Now when we discussed about the rights of the accused, we
said that it is the right to be informed of the cause or
accusation against him because the information to which he
pleaded guilty or not is the immediate basis for later on his
availing of that privilege by virtue of his acquittal or
conviction. So either way, he can claim double jeopardy for
the filing of the same offense. His guarantee is to set the
effects of the first prosecution, whether he was acquittedthere or convicted; to set the effects at rest, assuring the
accused he shall not thereafter be subjected to anxiety for
the 2ndcharge of the same offense.
REQUISITES (for double jeopardy to lie) :
a.) There must be a 1st jeopardy there must be a1stjeopardy so that you can claim thereafter a 2nd
jeopardy. Thats why you call it double.
b.) The 2ndjeopardy must be for the same offense asthat in the 1st.
DISCUSSION OF THE REQUISITES:
a.) 1stjeopardy attachesthe 1stjeopardy must be attached prior to the 2nd.
-if you say that the 1stjeopardy already attaches, based on
the existence of the ff. elements:
Valid complaint/info. or other formal chargesufficient to convict the accused.
The complaint/info. must be filed b4 a competentcourt.
The accused has been arraigned and he hasentered his valid plea.
The 1st jeopardy must have been validlyterminated. the case has been dismissed or
otherwise terminated w/o the express consent of
the accused.
Remember the elements for the 1stjeopardy:
Upon a valid complaint or info. Competent court Arraignment & plea 1stjeopardy must have been validly terminated.
*Lacking one, you cannot say that the accused hasbeen put in __.
I. 1stJEOPARDY ATTACHES
a.) Upon a valid complaint/info.-this is necessary to inform the accused of the nature and
the cause of the accusation against him.
-if the prosecution is based on an invalid complaint or info.,
this cannot be a valid judgment, and hence will not place the
accused under double jeopardy because it cannot be said
that he has been in danger of conviction.
Vincoy v. CA
Facts:
Accused here was convicted of estafa by the RTC. He
appealed his case to the CA. The convicted was affirmed. B4
the SC, he now alleged double jeopardy because apparently,
this is the 2nd time that he was charged of estafa. The 1 st
being that filed b4 the prosecutors office under a
preliminary investigation. Only that, in the preliminary
investigation, the complaint was dismissed. So according tohim, when the complaint was dismissed, hes already in
danger of conviction, which is incorrect. The preliminary
investigation stage is still not part of a trial. This is just the
determination of probable cause. It cannot be said that the
accused is in danger of conviction.
Held:
In this case, the jeopardy has not yet attached when the
complaint was dismissed during the preliminary investigation
stage. No trial was held yet. There was no case yet.
People v. Manaba
Facts:
This was decided in 1933 when rape was still considered asnot a crime against person but against chastity.
The complaint of rape was filed by the police. During that
time, we know that the police or any other person other
than the victim cannot file the info. or complaint. This was
dismissed. Can the case be refiled w/o placing the accused
under double jeopardy?
Held:
Yes, because the 1st dismissal was based on an invalid
complaint or info. w/c cannot make a valid judgment and
therefore, cannot be argued that the accused has been in
danger of conviction.
Cudia v. CA
Facts:
An info. was filed by an improper public officer. The crime
for the possession of unlicensed firearms was committed in
Malabacat, Pampanga. The case was filed by the city
prosecutor of Angeles City of Pampanga Province. But then
city prosecutor has no jurisdiction to file a case because
under the law, it should have been the provincial prosecutor.
It should be the provincial prosecutor to file a case for that
crime which happened in the province. What happened in
8/12/2019 consti 2 sec 18-22
2/15
2
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights)3rdExam Transcription
SY 2013-2014
Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as
this case is that, the city prosecutor filed a case. The
provincial prosecutor filed the same case. Both cases were
raffled to the same branch or the same sala. The city
prosecutor moved for the dismissal of the case, apparently
realizing that he has no authority to file it. Since it was
dismissed, can the accused not claim double jeopardy?
Held:
Again, it was based on an invalid info. One that is filed by a
person who is not authorized to file the same. So, he was
not in danger of conviction. Therefore, there is no double
jeopardy.
Pua Yi Kun v. People
Facts:
The charge was for theft. But reading the info., apparently
there is one element lacking which is the property was
taken w/o the consent of the owner. W/o that element, you
cannot prosecute the accused for theft because there was no
consent, it cannot be theft. Now, if the info. lacks that
element, would that place the accused in danger of
conviction?
Held:
No. Therefore, if the information lacks one element needed
to prosecute or convict the accused, then it is considered as
an invalid info.
Can the same case for theft be refiled? The same case fore
theft?
Yes! Because the 1st dismissal was based on an invalid
information.
Compare that w/
Lasoy v. ZenarosaFacts:
The info. was for possession of 40.4 kgs. of marijuana.
Before the accused was arraigned, there seemed to be a
tampering of info. for 42.4 kgs. The word kilogram was
erased. So he was now arraigned for 42.2 grams of
marijuana. So he was arraigned and sentenced to
imprisonment, thats only for 6 mos. And 1 day. So he
applied for probation. After discovering the falsification of
the info., the prosecutor ammended the info. because the
intention is to prosecute him for 42.4 kilograms of
marijuana. Will there be double jeopardy if the case will be
refiled? This time alleging the correct amount of marijuana.
Held:
Yes, there will be double jeopardy because there was a valid
info. even if it was allegedl tampered. The crime was
already complete in all of its elements to support the
conviction of the accused. The accused was already in
danger of conviction.
So in this case, even if the info. was allegedly tampered, if it
is already complete, if it is valid, as when the elements are
there, then double jeopardy will lie.
b.) Competent Court-we know that if the court has no jurisdiction, whatever
judgment it renders is null and void. Meaning, it cannot
render any valid judgment.
-so a person charged in an incompetent court or a court w/o
jurisdiction, cannot plead double jeopardy for the same
offense by a competent court. And in this case, the accused
cannot __ conviction in an orig. prosecution.
Zapatos v. People
Facts:
He was first charged of murder and frustrated murder before
the RTC. But later on, the prosecutor realized that the
crimes as charged were committed by a public officer in
relation to his office. Now, under the rules on jurisdiction
and under the law, it is not w/ the RTC but to the
Sandiganbayan. So the question is, if the case in the RTC is
dismissed, because it was discovered that it is w/ the
Sandiganbayan, can it be refiled in the Sandiganbayan?
Held:
Yes! Because the RTC precisely has no jurisdiction over that
person/public officer for an offense committed in relation to
his office.
This is also, more or less, the same in the case of...
Binay v. Sandiganbayan
Facts:
Binay before he became city mayor of Makati is the
municipal mayor of Makati. Prior to the enactment of RA
7975, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction only over public
officers who has a salary grade rank 26. So RA 7975 was
passed including now the municipal mayors in thejurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. But notwithstanding such
passage, the case against Binay was filed in the RTC. A few
months after, perhaps realizing the mistake, the
ombudsman filed the case b4 the Sandiganbayan. He has
now 2 cases pending. 1 b4 the RTC; and one b4 the
Sandiganbayan. He moved to dismiss the RTC, w/c was
granted. Can he now move to dismiss the case in the
Sandiganbayan? Because the 1st jeopardy has already
attached.
Held:
No, because the RTC is not considered as a competent court.
Arraignment and plea, if you recall in the rights of the
accused, the arraignment is one of the indispensable stages
in the trial of criminal cases/proceedings. This is
indispensable to the point that if there is no arraignment,
this is also jurisdictional; the court has no jurisdiction. No
arraignment, no valid judgment. Why? Bottomline, the
accused was denied of his constitutional right. If the accused
is denied of his constitutional right, the court is ousted of its
jurisdiction.
8/12/2019 consti 2 sec 18-22
3/15
3
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights)3rdExam Transcription
SY 2013-2014
Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as
So there must be an arraignment and plea. A defendant is
never placed under jeopardy unless after he shall have
pleaded of the charge against him during the arraignment.
c.) Arraignment and Plea
Now what happens if the case is dismissed before the
accused is arraigned? Some lawyers use this as a tactic.
They would ask for the suspension of the arraignment
because thay have some questions, say, the propriety of the
info., jurisdiction over the person, or questioning the arrest,
or questioning the search made. Now some lawyers would
prefer that the case be dismissed before his client is
arraigned. But what is the effect of that? Well, one good
effect would be that there is no criminal record w/ regard
the client or the accused. It is as if no criminal case was filed
against him. But the bad/negative effect is that the 1st
jeopardy would not attach because he has not yet been
arraigned. So that is what happens if it is dismissed b4
arraignment.
Galvez v. CA
Facts:
The info. that were initially filed were 1 for homicide and 2
for frustrated homicide. Now, b4 the accused are arraigned,
the fiscal moved to dismiss the cases against them b4
arraignment. And from homicide, he ammended the info. to
murder and frustrated murder. Can the accused now
question that refiling of the new case?
Held:
Unfortunately they have not yet been arraigned. So in that
case, double jeopardy is not available.
Flores v. JovenFacts:
The accused was charged here of rape in an ammended info.
B4 arraignment, it was the accused who move to quash the
info because accor. to him, he was not identified in the
information as one of the assailants.
So if you were the lawyer, you think about it. If in the info.,
your clients name does not appear, that he be arraigned!
Because there will be no way that he will be convicted.
In this case however, they moved to quash the info. pointing
to the prosecution its mistake. So there is still time to
remedy that mistake because he will just correct the info. So
therefore, double jeopardy will not lie.
d.) The 1st jeopardy/case must have beenvalidly terminated
-the 1st case has ended, bcoz that is the only time
that the 2ndprosecution/charge will be barred!
-When would you say that the 1st jeopardy has been
terminated? either the accused was convicted,
and thats it! So youll say theres prior conviction.
Or the accused was acquitted or theres prior
acquittal. So there are instances that the decision is
not acquittal or conviction, but rather, the case was
merely dismissed! Say you filed a motion to quash
thats why it was dismissed. Say you question the
WOA so it was dismissed! Generally, when you say
that it was dismissed w/o conviction or acquittal, it
was not tried on the merits, but rather it was for some
reason that it was dismissed. In that case, the case
was dismissed or otherwise terminated w/o the
express consent of the accused. this is
important!
So, when there is a conviction, acquittal, or the case
was already dismissed w/o the express consent of the
accused, there is already a bar to another prosecution
or same or similar case. This makes you think, can the
2 cases be simultaneously heard? And the answer is?
Pwede ba? For example, frustrated murder and
murder. The same victim. Separate and sala. Hindi
alam. Can they be simultaneously heard? Say for
example, you forgot to question it. But what could be
your ground? In this case, there is yet no double
jeopardy. The first jeopardy has not yet
attached! Because it has not yet been
terminated!
Another prosecution
What do you mean by another prosecution? That
would mean, the refiling of the same charge! Say
homicide was dismissed/convicted/acquitted, and then
refile for the same case of homicide. Or it could be the
same offense! Not exactly homicide but say,
attempted homicide, attempy to commit the
same or frustration thereof, or any offense
which necessarily includes or is necessarily
included in the offense charge in the former
complaint or information. Now this requires you to
know the elements of the offenses, whether these
elements atre necessarily included in, or necessarily
includes in the offense charged in the 1st case or
former complaint or information.
Another prosecution would mean if you appeal, say
a conviction or acquittal, because you now open the
case of the accused for review! That would now be
tantamount to ddouble jeopardy. Say, hes already
acquitted and you file your appeal. What happens?
The court will review the case. So there is ultimately a
2ndjeopardy. So another prosecution would mean, the
same case, in the next stage of appeal or review of
judgments.
NOTE: It is the conviction, the acquittal or the
dismissal or the termination of the case that bars
another prosecution for the same offense, or anyattempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or
of any offense which necessarily includes ornecessarily included in the offense charged in theformer complaint or information.
Vincoy v. CA
Facts:
That was the case for estafa. It was already in the
appeal stage before the SC. He said that was already
his 2ndjeopardy because in the 1 st instance, the case
8/12/2019 consti 2 sec 18-22
4/15
4
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights)3rdExam Transcription
SY 2013-2014
Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as
was filed / the prosecutors office in a criminal
injunction, in the preliminary investigation stage.
Held:
So we said that arraignment is not part of trial. To
further explain that, the constitutional right against
double jeopardy exists not after the 1st preliminary
investigation but only after the 1 st trial which results
either in the conviction or acquittal or even in the
termination of the case w/o the express consent of the
accused.
So if its still w/ the preliminary investigation stage,
say that your neighbor filed a case of libel against you
and the complaint was dismissed by the prosecutor,
can he refile another complaint of the same libel
against you? The answer is YES! If it was dismissed
again, can he refile it all over again? YES, he can do
that because there is yet no double jeopardy! It
was still in the PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
STAGE. Again, when you say preliminary
investigation, its not yet a criminal case. Its st ill a
proceeding to determine the existence of probable
cause!
People v. Bulaong
Facts:
He was charged of rebellion, in Laguna. At the same
time, he was also charged of subversion. We have no
subversion law right now, but during the time that he
was __, more or less, the elements of subversion is
the same w/ rebellion. Now, the rebellion case in
Laguna was already in the appeal stage. He was
convicted. He appealed his case. On appeal, after his
conviction, he said, Ok, theres already a conviction,
therefore, I invoke double jeopardy. The case for
rebellion must be dismissed because there is a case
for subversion against me pending in Manila. Was it a
correct argument? He wants the rebellion case to be
dismissed because there is subversion pending in
Manila, which accor. to him, places him in doublejeopardy. Was it a correct contention?
Held:
No! Not the other way around. But it was the rebellion
where there was already the conviction. He cannot use
subversion because its still pending. It has not yet
been terminated. Remember, it is the termination of
the case w/c places the accused in double jeopardy, or
w/c bars the 2ndprosecution.
What would have been the better tactic?
Accept the conviction and move for the dismissal of
subversion. Because once the conviction is already
final, the 1stjeopardy has already attached.
Dismissal w/o the consent of the accused
Now we said that either there is conviction, or there is prior
acquittal. But there is another prosecution if the case was
terminated or dismissed w/o the consent of the accused.
Now, when the dismissal or the termination of the case is
w/o the consent of the accused, again the rule is that
jeopardy attaches.
People v. Ylagan
Facts:
Immediately after arraignment, the private prosecutor
moved for the dismissal of the case which was granted by
the court. Now, the lawyer for the defendant and the
accused said nothing when they moved for the dismissal of
the case. 11 days later, they filed another information,
charging the same offense. The accused now claim or invoke
double jeopardy because the case was dismised w/o his
consent. Take note, it was the prosecutor who moved for the
dismissal of the case. Now according to the prosecutor,
when you say that w/o the consent of the accused, it must
mean over the objection of the accused.
Held:
No, thats a wrong interpretation. The mere silence of the
defendant or failure to object for the dismissal of the case
does not constitute a consent. So it cannot be taken as over
conjection or against the will of the accused.
So the right not to be put in jeopardy for a 2 ndtime for an
offense is as important as the other constitutional rights. Soyou cannot just imply w/n he consented or did not consent.
The thing is the mere silence cannot be implied as
consent.
Tupaz v. Ulep
Facts:
The accused was already arraigned, so the accused moved
for the reinvestigation of the the tax liabilities b4 proceeding
w/ the trial. So when the accused filed the motion for
reinvestigation w/c the court granted, the prosecutor moved
to dismiss. Nagkamali cya. Akala nya nagkamali cya sa
kanyang investigation. So sabi nya, ok I just will ammend,
perhaps later. So um-agree naman cya kaagad, the
prosecutor. Now, it was the prosecutor who moved for the
dismissal of the case. Now, obviously, the case wasdismissed w/o the consent of the accused. But the SolGen
would like to argue that it was the accused who induced the
prosecutor to dismiss the case.
Held:
You cannot imply that, just because he filed a motion for
reinvestigation. Bottomline: the case was dismissed w/o
the consent of thee accused. So dismissal on the motion of
the prosecutor/ prosecution, is dismissal w/o the consent of
the accused. Therefor, it already bars his subsequent
prosecution.
As always, if we have a general rule, you know that there is
always an exception to the general rule. Now, even if it was
dismissed or terminated w/o the consent of the accused,double jeopardy will still not attach in the ff. cases:
a.) The case was dismissed on motion of theprosecutor hindi motion ng accused. Still,
jeopardy does not attach.b.) when dismissal is made w/o due process
therefore, w/o jurisdiction or w/ grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.c.)
8/12/2019 consti 2 sec 18-22
5/15
5
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights)3rdExam Transcription
SY 2013-2014
Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as
Gorion v. RTC
Facts:
The court made an error as to the scheduling of the calendar
of the trial. When the case was called on this day, or on 2
consecutive trial days today and tomorrow when the
judge called the case today, only the prosecution was
present. The accused and his counsel was not around. So
the prosecutor moved that today and tomorrows hearing
(apperently he was not not ready ) would be postponed.
The problem was that, the following day, the clerk forgot to
note that it was already postponed. So the case was aclled
again for that day. And the prosecution was there because
the prosecution was there everyday. The accused and his
lawyer of course were not around because it was supposed
to be postponed. But the judge realized that they were not
around, he dismissed the case immediately. Later, the judge
realized his mistake, he set aside his order of dismissal.
The accused now questioned that the case proceeded
because according to the accused, it was already dismissed
w/o his consent given. The setting aside of the case isinvalid! Is the accused correct?
In this case, when the court made an order on that date
when supposedly there is no hearing, the court forgot the
purpose on that date, has no jurisdiction to hear that
case! Because it was not supposed to be calendared on that
date. So he made the order dismissing the case, it was w/o
jurisdiction, or say, it was w/o due process. So
notwithstanding that it was dismissed w/o the consent of the
accused, in that case, since there was no due process and
no jurisdiction of the court on that day, it was really
erroneous. So, double jeopardy does not attach.
It also does not attach if the case was terminated w/o theconsent of the accused when there is denial of due process
on the part of the state. Note that dues process is owed not
only to the accused but also to the state.
State v. Muro
Facts:
Involving several criminal cases against Imelda Marcos, the
judge motu proprio dismissed the case against Imelda
Marcos. His reasoning was that he saw on television that
several laws were already enacted or ammended affecting
the pending cases of Imelda, to the point that he can no
longer be convicted. So motu proprio, the judge dismissed
the cases against Imelda Marcos. It was dismissed w/o the
consent of Imelda. Would these be double jeopardy?
Held:
In that case, there is denial of due process on the part of the
state. So in this case, jeopardy does not attach.
Serino v. Zosa
Facts:
There were 2 lawyers for the prosecution. They were around
and readily available during that hearing date. But the jdge
said, I will finish the trial of this first case. So they stepped
outside of the courtroom. When their case was called, they
were nowhere to be found. So the judge dismissed the case
because the lawyers were not around.
Held:
So apparently here there is lack of due process. So it
cannot be said that the dismissal was valid. The dismissal
was in fact null and void for lack of due process.
NOTE:
So again, para di kayo malito, if the dismissal was w/o the
consent of the accused, jeopardy attaches. But if it is w/ the
consent, if not on the motion or on the instance of theaccused, then there is considered to be a waiver of his right
to avail of double jeopardy.
So thats why, if the termination is w/ the consent of theaccused, double jeopardy will not attach!
Dismissal w/ the consent of the accused
Dimayacyac v. CA
Facts:
The accused was charged of falsification of public document.
After he was arraigned, he filed a motion to quash. Motion to
quash is akin to, in your civil cases, motion to dismiss. So it
was granted by the trial court. Now, can the case be refiled?
Held:
Yes! Because the dismissal was upon the motion or w/ the
consent of the accused.
The exception again to the general rule is that, even if it was
dismissed/terminated w/ the consent of the accused, the
dismissal is still tantamount to acquittal and jeopardy
attaches in the ff. cases tantamount to acquittal:
a.) When the dismissal is based on the invoccation ofthe right to speedy trial.
-Who will invoke the right to speedy trial?
Logically, it would be the accused who will invoke
that right. Now its a constitutional right. So thecourt will dismiss the case based on the invocation
of the right to speedy trial.
-the dismissal was upon the motion of the
accused. So it was w/ the consent of theaccused, but it this case, since it was an
invocation of a constitutional right, thedismissal is considered as an acquittal. So
even if w/ the consent, not just simply a dismissal,
its already a judgement of acquittal. Therefore,
jeopardy will already attach.
b.) Dismissal based on a demurer of evidence.-Ive mentioned this b4, in relation to the right of
the accused to remain silent, and in relation alsoto the right to be presumed innocent. Now we said
that it is the duty of the prosecutor to prove hiscase against the accused. And only when a prima
facie case is established against the accused is the
accused, with the __ he will present counter__
evidence. Now in relation of this right to remain
8/12/2019 consti 2 sec 18-22
6/15
6
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights)3rdExam Transcription
SY 2013-2014
Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as
silent, in the proceeding of criminal cases, in
criminal proceedings, it is always, as a generalrule, the prosecutor who will 1st present his
evidence. It is always 1stthe prosecutor. There are
some instances of course. And then after, the
prosecution will rest its case, believing that he has
already established a prima facie case against theaccused. The accused will now have his turn to
present his own countervailing evidence. What
happens, if after presenting all the evidence of theprosecution, it is very clear that he has not
established a prima facie case against theaccused? Meaning, the evidence that he has
presented is really insuffiecient to convict the
accused. You as an accused, should you still
present countervailing evidence? Its notnecessary. So what you can file is a demurer ofevidence. This is akin to show to the court that the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt and there is no
time for presenting your own evidence. So you
move for the dismissal of the case for insufficiency
of evidence. Now if the case is dismissed, basedon a demurer of evidence, its also tantamout to
an accquittal. Therefore, double jeopardy will
attach.
c.) Now as Ive said, if the case is appealed, it wouldbe tantamount to another prosecution even if you
say that its the same case.
-Now what is the rule and the role of appeal in
relation to double jeopardy? Who may appeal in
the 1stplace? Actually, any party, whether its theprosecution or the accused who will appeal from
the judgement or final order. The only caveat isthat the appeal cannot be done if the accused will
be placed in double jeopardy. And the general rule
is that if you appeal, for example, an acquittal, ifyou appeal the acquittal, it will tantamount to
double jeopardy because youre asking the court
to review its decision. So, when the accused
appeals from the sentence of the trial, when he
appeals therefore, it is tantamount to a waiver ofhis right against double jeopardy. And the caveat,
the danger is that, he closed the whole case open
for review by the appellate court.
Appeal and Double Jeopardy
People v. Rondero
Facts:
He was charged of rape w/ homicide. But the court convicted
him only of homicide. Hes not happy w/ the conviction, the
lawyer adviced him to appeal his case. Can the SC now
convict him for the original complaint or rape and
homicide?
Held:
He waives his right when the appeals his sentence, he
waives his right against double jeopardy and he throws the
whole case open for review! So he is in danger of being
convicted, not only of homicide but also of rape. The SC said
that, this precept should be borne in mind of every lawyer
of an accused who unwillingly takes the risk involved when
he decides to appeal a sentence. Lawyer, dont appeal just
for the sake of appealing because you are taking your client
at risk! So rape w/ homicide, even if the rape part was not
appealed, it is still open for review once appeal is made.
The state cannot appeal an erroneos judgment or acquittal,even if it is based on error of judgement.
Again, if the basis is error of judgement, the appeal will
place the accused in double jeopardy. In fact, when you get
an acquittal, thats the end of the case because you can no
longer appeal. Most lawyers prefer criminal cases especiallyif you are for the defense. Why?
1.) You have the right to remain silent2.) Because it is based on proof beyond reasonable
doubt, you role is just to show proof
3.) If theres an acquittal, the state no longer has theright to appeal.
Thats why some students wud like to become prosecutors
because the work is only during trial. After that, wla na
because you can no longer appeal your case. Except onlywhen there is error of judgement. Except only if you
question error of jurisdiction.
What the examples of cases wherein you question error of
jurisdiction? Certiorari. Youve been hearing this term time
and time again. Certiorari means that there is grave abuseof discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.Therefore you are questioning the jurisdiction, not the
judgement!
So if it is based on erroneos judgement, you cannot appealit! The SC said, a verdict of acquittal is immediately final anda reexamination of the merits of such acquittal even in the
appellate court, will put him a 2nd time in jeopardy for the
same offense. Take note that this constitutional guarantee
prohibits an appeal from a final judgment of acquittal, andthe law does not provide for exceptions, other than
deprivation of due process or grave abuse of discretionunder exceptional circumstances, because you are not
questioning an error of judgement but an error of
jurisdiction.
It is elementary therefore that the rule against doublejeopardy proscribes an a appeal a judgement of acquittal on
the merits.
So if youre thinking about being prosecutors, this is one of
the reasons why you should be one, because your work willonly up to trial. During appeal, if at all it is allowed, if its a
ceriorari proceeding, its now the SolGen who takes over.
Hayahay ang sa prosecution.
--end--
I will continue to transcribe the last discussion of Atty. J for
Consti II
Final Discussion For This Semester (SY 2013-2014)
People v. Serrano
Facts:
Here the accused was acquitted w/ the charge of rape. While
the prosecution filed a notice of appeal because he isintending to file an appeal w/ the CA. The judge in this case
give due course to the appeal and forwarded the records to
the CA. Was it right/proper for the judge to do that?
Held:
Its not proper because when we say acquittal, double
jeopardy is immediately executory. The examination of such
acquittable even in the appellate court, will put him in
jeopardy for the same offense.
8/12/2019 consti 2 sec 18-22
7/15
7
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights)3rdExam Transcription
SY 2013-2014
Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as
Again, the constitutional right of double jeopardy prohibits
an appeal from the judgement of acquittal. And the onlyexception would be, they would question that the entire
proceedings based on deprivation of due process or grave
abuse of discretion under such __ circumstances. So again,
the elementary rule is that, double jeopardy prohibits an
appeal from a judgement of the ff:a.) Of the merits
People v. Laggui
Facts:
The accused was charged of BP22. Now the judge
erroneously believed that the information failed to allege one
element of the offense of BP22 which is knowledge that
there is insufficient fund in the check. Accor. to the judge, it
is insufficient to convict the accused. The case here was
dismissed. The accused in fact was acquitted. Now, this is an
erroneous interpretation of the law in fact. The judge was
wrong in the interpretation because if you study BP22, you
would know that this is one of the laws where there is prima
facie presumption of knowledge. So he does not need to
prove in fact knowledge. Its just, when after notice he fails
to make good of the check, there is already a presumptionof knowledge of the insufficiency of the fund. So, thats
where the judge went wrong. So can the prosecution file an
appeal to correct this erroneous decision of the judge? The
judge in this case does not know the law.
Held:
In this case, again the rule is that based on double jeopardy,
it is not prohibited to make the appeal even if ___. Mali
naman talaga yung interpretation ng judge.
Yuchengco v. CA
Facts:
This is a case for libel. The court convicted him. During the
trial of the appeal, the CA reversed the conviction. In theCA, he was acquitted. Now, can the private complainant file
a petition for certiorari to claim grave abuse of discretion
when the CA reversed the conviction of the RTC? This is a
petition for certiorari.
Held:
Again, this is a judgement on acquittal. This right to double
jeopardy is available even in the CA. So there is an acquittal
if the proceedings is final and unappealable, we know that.
But this is also applicable where it happens at the trial court
level or b4 the CA.
People v. CA
Facts:
The accused was convicted of homicide w/ serious physical
injuries. He appealed his case b4 the CA. Now, b4 the CA,
the CA, it reversed the decision on evidentiary grounds.
Meaning, the CA believed that the prosecution failed to the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The state
here, instead of appealing the decision to the SC, and
knowing that he can no longer make the appeal bcoz of
double jeopardy, filed instead a petition for certiorari. Again
when you say petition for certiorari, there is grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. So it is
now alleging that the court has no jurisdiction and that the
decision of tha CA is void ab initio.
Held:
Now, the general rule dba when it comes to double
jeopardy is it prohibits an appeal of judgement or acquittal
base on the merits. But it allows the filing of the case
wheere the question is based on the allegation that the court
has no jurisdiction. So if theres no jurisdiction, double
jeopardy will not lie or is not available. Youre questioning
the jurisdiction of the court. But, when the state or any
party questions the jurisdiction of the court, it must show
that the court acted w/o jurisdiction or gravely abused its
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. That is
the core of the issue that you will raise b4 the appellate
court, whether the CA or the SC. But note that when you go
to the SC, the SC cannot inquire into factual matters; only
errors of law, not errors of facts. Now if you determine
certain factual matters as to evidence, its no longer
available in certiorari proceedings. So the mere fact that a
court erroneously decides a case, does not necessarily
deprive it of its jurisdiction. Again, errors of judgement
cannot be reviewed w/o violating the rule against doublejeopardy. Apparently, in the guise of certiorari, the SolGen is
questioning the decision of the CA w/c question now delves
on evidentiary matters. So, bottomline is, its still the same
questioning errors of judgement. There is not an allegation
as to the lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction. So here, ultimately it turns
out that the petition is just to really question the judgement,
not to question the jurisdiction. So again, double jeopardy
is available in this case.
The judgement of acquittal is immediately final upon itspromulgation. It cannot be recalled for correction or
ammendment.
Argel v. PascuaFacts:
This is a case for murder. Now the judge thought that there
was no witness against the accused. So he promulgated a
decision acquitting the accused. Now the error was pointed
out by the prosecutor saying that, judge, there was actually
a witness who testified and who identified the accused. And
the judge reviewed the records and realize his mistake that
there was indeed a witness. So there was no basis in fact as
to her judgement. So, she made an order recalling her prior
order of acquittal, made a correction/ammendment and
instead of acquittal, its now conviction. So this correction
and ammendment happened in a matter of days. So the
decision happened today, tomorrow conorrect nya.
Held:
Now this is already a violation of double jeopardy. The judge
cannot revise, the moment that the judge promulgates the
decision, he/she can no longer revise that decision, except
only for clerical errors or some clarificatory parts of the
decision. But as to revise it from acquittal to conviction, then
it now violates the constitutional right to double jeopardy.
8/12/2019 consti 2 sec 18-22
8/15
8
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights)3rdExam Transcription
SY 2013-2014
Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as
Now what about the decision provides for a penalty w/c is
not in accordance w/ what isprovided for by law? So apenalty contrary to law. In...
People v. Leones
Facts:
The accused was charged and convicted of 3 counts of rape,3 counts of acts of lasciviousness but instead of imposing
death penalty w/c is provided for by law, the judge only
imposed imprisonment. Can you point that out to the judge
and say by a motion or appeal, point it to the judge that the
penalty has no basis in law bcoz the law says it should be
death.
Held:
Now again, to do that would expose the accused to double
joepardy. So here, appeal by the state to increase the
penalty imposed by the judge or court places the accused in
double jeopardy even if the state is correct and the judge is
wrong.
People v. CA
Facts:
BP22 again. The accused appealed the decision and b4 the
CA, it was revised to the paying of fine. The state again find
that decision of the CA b4 the SC, questioning the fine and
insists that it should be imprisonment.
Held:
Again, to change the penalty, would be to expose the
accused to double jeopardy.
Now, why is it allowed to be changed from imprisonment to
fine? Because it was then the accused who made the
appeal. And when the accused appeals, he waived hisright to double jeopardy.
Can the state appeal to question the decision? It cannot
because it exposes the accused to double jeopardy.
Now, under the rules, specifically Sec. 7 of Rule 128, ajudgement of conviction may upon the motion of theaccused be modified or set aside before it becomes final, or
before appeal is perfected. What does this mean?
When the judgement is one for conviction, can the state
make an appeal? The answer is still no!
REVIEW
When the judgement is one for acquittal, can thestate make an appeal? No! Because it places the
accused in double jeopardy!
But if it is for conviction, this time, can the statemake an appeal? Still no! Because it places theaccused in double jeopardy! It might be that the
penalty will be increased.
So here, only the accused in fact, can move to modify or set
aside the judgement of conviction b4 it becomes final.
Palu-ay v. CA
Facts:
Palu-ay actually is a private complainant. The accused here
was charged of frustrated murder but the trial court
convicted the accused only of physical injuries. There is a
conviction. The private complainant representing the victim,
questioned the decision of conviction. It should not be just
physical injuries because the complainant is one for
frustrated homicide. So can it file the __. In this case in fact,
the action that was raised was one for anullment of
judgement.
Held:
That is still not allowed. Under the rules, its only the
accused may move to modify or set aside a judgement
of conviction.
So here, you can see that when it comes to an appeal, you
consider this as an another prosecution w/c is part if the 1 st
jeopardy has already attached because this other
prosecution will now expose or place the accused to double
jeopardy.
RECALL
Okay, lets recall the requirements:
For double jeopardy to apply, we said that 1 st,there must be a 1stjeopardy that has attached. So
it will attach ultimately when the 1stjeopardy has
been terminatedconviction or acquittal or
terminated w/o the express consent of the
accused. That the 2nd jeopardy must be for the same
offense as that it the 1st. it does not mean that
once ur convicted of a crime or offense, ur already
immune from any other charges. Wlng immunity
di gaya sa anong tawag nun Amazing Race!(Haha! ). You can also be charged or convicted
of other offenses.
What do you mean by same offensewhich is thatapplicable in case of double jeopardy?-same offense wud either mean, the original
offense charged. When it was decided, you are
again recharged (parang battery ) of the same
homicide. Or if not, for any attempt to commit the
same or frustration thereof. So ateempted
homicide, or frustrated homicide; or for anyoffense w/c necessarily includes or is necessarily
included in the offense charged.
Ex: Muder necessarily includes homicide. Or,
serious physical injuries would be included infrustrated homicide.
The rule is that, this is what you call THE RULE
OF IDENTITY! One has been charged w/ an
offense cannot be charged again w/ the same oridentical offense though the later be lesser or
greater than the former will determine the identity
of the offense. Are they identical? The rule of
8/12/2019 consti 2 sec 18-22
9/15
9
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights)3rdExam Transcription
SY 2013-2014
Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as
identical (the rule of identity), if they are, they are
considered as same offense. And once there isalready a prior charge, conviction or acquittal,
then a subsequent charging is already proscribe
by double jeopardy.
Theres a thing that we call INSEPARABLEOFFENSE series of acts would give to one
offense and they are inseperable.
Ex: Smoking opium cannot be charged also w/
possessing opium. Because you cannot smokeopium if you do not possess it. Unless naki-share
ka lng.
So if theres an INSEPARABLE OFFENSE, theres
only 1 offense, and if ur charged again for thatthen there is double jeopardy.
The EXCEPTION to this RULE OF IDENTITY or
this SAME OFFENSE is what you call the
SUPERVENING FACT DOCTRINE the
conviction of the accused shall not be a bar toanother prosecution for an offense w/c necessarily
includes the offense charged in the former
complaint or information whether a graver offense
be developed due to supervening facts arising
from the same act or omission constituting afromer charge. So in this case, if there is a
supervening fact arsing from the same act or
omission constituting a former charge, conviction
of that may be had. There is NO DOUBLE
JEOPARDY! In the case of...
II. THE 2ND JEOPARDY MUST BE FOR THESAME OFFENSE
Melo v. People
(LANDMARK CASE FOR SUPERVENING FACT
DOCTRINE)
Facts:
When the accused was charged, the accused was originally
charged for frustrated homicide. He was arraigned at 8
oclock AM. He pleaded not guilty. Its frustrated homicide,
pleaded not guilty. At 10 AM, 2 hrs after, the victim died.
The prosecutor, a few days after, filed a case for
consummated homicide. Now, can that be done, or is there
double jeopardy?
Held:
This is an example of supervening fact. There can be no
double jeoparsy because at the time that he was arraigned,
the fact of death has not yet existed. So there is
impossibility of him being charged of the death of the victim,
or say homicide. So here, the rule of identity does not
apply for the 2nd
offense was not in existence at thetime of the 1st prosecution. Or the reason is that in
such case there is no possibility for the accused
during the 1st prosecution to be convicted of the
offense that was then INEXISTENT. Thats why there is
NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
So stated differently, where after the 1stprosecution, a new
fact supervenes, for w/c the defendant is responsible, take
note, there is NO intervening action/ OUTSIDE
ACTION/INTERVENTION, it just simply happened that thevictim died. He died, the direct cause of his death is the
action of the defendant. So the defendant is still the person
responsible for the death. Its different when he dies in thehands of the doctor, say a wrong medication. Its no longer
a supervening fact. Now, this new fact, the death, changes
the character of the offense, and together w/ the facts
existing at that time, will now constitute a new and distinct
offense. In this case, the accused cannot be said to be in 2ndjeopardy if in fact he died for the __ offense. Now
distinguish this in the case of People v. City of Manila.
People v. City of Manila (not in the syllabus)
Facts:
In this case, the accused was charged w/ serious physical
injuries through reckless imprudence for the resulting death
of the victim. The victim however died on the day the
infomation was filed. On the day that the info. was filed, the
victim was already dead. Now, what was charged is that
serious physical injuries. So the accused was arraigned 2
days after. He pleaded guilty and sentenced accordingly.
Held:
So in this case, jeopardy has already attached. He can no
longer be charged for the death because during that time
that he was arraigned, the fact of death was already
existing. There is already double jeopardy.
It is not considered same offense however when one act
gives rise to several crimes. ONE ACT GIVES RISE TOSEVERAL CRIMES in which case, SEPARATE
PROSECUTION FOR EACH CRIME may be filed,provided that the several elements of the several
crimes are NOT IDENTICAL, becase the rule is IDENTITY
OF THE OFFENSES. Since they are not identical, then theremay be separate prosecutionsfor each offenses. Example
is in the case of...
People v. Saley
Facts:
The accused here was engaged in recruiting for employment
abroad w/o a license. And part of the recruitment is for the
recruits to pay placement fee. Now, what can we file against
the accused? This case charges for estafa thru false
representation w/c is punishable by the Revised Penal Code
and illegal recruitment on a large scale w/c is punishable by
the Labor Code or a special law. Can these 2 charges be
made against the accused w/o violating double jeopardy.
Held:
Yes! How do we know? You look at the elements of each of
these offenses and you wud know that they have different
elements. If you say estafa, the main element is deceit.
Deceit and there is DAMAGE. DECEIT and DAMAGE. It
happened when he collected or she collected money by false
representation that she has authority to do so. When you
say illegal recruitment, it is the act of recruiting, being
engaged in the business of recruitment w/o a license. So
this can be prosecuted separately or in separate actions.
Another example would be in...
Merencillo v. People
Facts:
8/12/2019 consti 2 sec 18-22
10/15
10
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights)3rdExam Transcription
SY 2013-2014
Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as
Direct bribery being charged under the RPC will be charged
separately from violation of Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act or 3019. Again, you look @ the elements if they are
different. Ok, question. Can you be charged of estafa and
BP22 @ the same time? What is the basis of that issuance of
the check? Ok, you look for the answer to that question.
NOTE: you look @ the elements of BP22 and the
elements of estafa w/n they can be charged
separately or theres already double jeopardy.
Ok, so you have this case of...
People v. Relova
Facts:
The act is installing of electrical wiring and devices of __ to
lower the electric charge in his ice plant. Now, it turned out
that the city prohibits such kinds of installation w/o a permit.
She she is being charged of that installation w/o
authorization under a city ordinance. The 2ndcharge is one
for theft. Theft of electricity under the Revised Penal Act or
RPC. What happened actually here is that, when the 1 st
charge was made, his defense was prescription, because
under the city ordinance, it shud be filed w/in 2 mos. Fromdiscovery but it was filed 9 mos. after. So the case was
dismissed, he was acquitted. What the prosecution did
thereafter is to file the case for theft. You tell me, is double
jeopardy available?
Held:
If you base it on the same offense, it is not available. Its
just like for illegal recruitment and youir estafa; your direct
bribery and violation of 1319 or illegal fishing and
possession of explosives. They are diff. crimes. If you base it
on the 1stsentence, no person shall be twice put in jeopardy
or punishment for the same offense. We would know that
they are not of the same offenses. So double jeopardy is not
available. But there is a saving grace for this accused. The
2nd sentence is if an act is punished by a law and anordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar for another prosecution for the same
offense. This is no longer called THE SAME OFFENSE
RULE but yor SAME ACT. The fact that it was included as
an extension to the right of double jeopardyunder Sec. 21,
the accused can now claim DOUBLE JEOPARDY. W/o the
2ndsentence, there is no double jeopardy. Right? But since it
was inserted/included in Sec. 21, then double jeopardy is
available. The same acted would be that same act is
punishable by a law and an ordinance, regardless of the
indentity of the elements of the offense. So that same
act is being punished/penalized by a law, whether the RPC
or sepcial law, and an ordinance.
So the word sentence therefore is that GENERAL RULE
as Ive said. And the 2nd sentence is that EXCEPTION
TO THE GENERAL RULE against double jeopardy which is
available, provided that both offenses spring from the sameact or set of acts. Put it differently, where the offense
charged or penalized either by different sections of the same
statute. The same Revised Penal Code but only under article
this one and article this one. Or by diff. statutes, by theRevised Penal Code and another law like a special law. Forexample, illegal possession of firearms. The important
inquiry, this is now covered by the 1st sentence. The
important inquiry here is the identity of the offenses
charged. Now, as to the 2ndsentence, what you only need to
do is to determine w/n the same act is punished by a statute
or a law and another punished by/the same act is punishedby an ordinance. So, IDENTITY OF ACTS is the point of
inquiry. The same act punishable by ordinance, punishable
by law. Now as to the 1stsentence, as long as the offenses
are related/similar, its the same offense, even if they are
punsihed by the RPC, a special law, dif f. sections/provisionsof the same statute, then you call thatSAME OFFENSE.
So the easy point of determination is just to determine w/nthe applicable statute is a law and an ordinance. If so, then
you determine w/n they arise from the same act.
Now look at this case, same act of unauthorized installation
of electric meter. May the person be prosecuted for violation
of BP876 or your Electric Act something, and theft under theRPC. Ok! You look for the answer. Thats my 2 ndassignmentto you.
This is not in the discussion of Atty. J. I tried to look
for the case. Thank you Phil. Law. Info.!
People v. Relova
Facts:
On Feb. 1, 1975, police searched the ice plant owned by
Opulencia; they discovered electric wiring, devices and
contraptions had been installed without necessary authority
from city government. On Nov 24, 1975, Asst. City Fiscal
filed info against Opulencia for violation of a city ordinance
which prohibits unauthorized wiring installations. Opulencia
pleaded not guilty and filed motion to dismiss on the ground
that the crime had already prescribed (offense charged was
a light felony w/c prescribes 2 mos from discovery thereof).
Lower court dismissed the case. Acting City Fiscal filed
another info for theft of electric power. Opulencia filed
Motion to Quash upon the ground of double jeopardy. Judge
Relova granted motion and dismissed the case. Motion for
Recon denied, hence this appeal.
Issue:
WON there was double jeopardy.
Ruling:
A person who was charged for violating a city ordinance for
having installed a metering device to lower his electric bills
which was dismissed for prescription of the offense may not
be charged again for theft of electric power under the RPC.The second sentence of Art. IV Sec. 22 embodies an
exception to the general proposition: the constitutional
protection, against double jeopardy is available although the
prior offense charged under an ordinance be different from
the offense charged subsequently under a national statute
such as the RPC, provided that both offenses spring from the
same act or set of acts. Where an offense is punished by
different sections of a statute or different statutes, the
8/12/2019 consti 2 sec 18-22
11/15
11
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights)3rdExam Transcription
SY 2013-2014
Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as
inquiry, for purposes of double jeopardy is on the identity of
offenses charged BUT where an offense is penalized by an
ordinance and a statute, the inquiry is on the identity of
acts. Since the dismissal of the case against Opulencia for
violation of an ordinance already amounted to an acquittal,
he can no longer charged with an offense punishable under a
statute which arise from the same act.
Another, for singing videoke after 11 oclock PM because it
was your birthday and for meron din tayong religiousactivities din doon, anung tawag dun na offense? Disturbing
religious service, yun ba yun? So the same act of singing ifyou are acquitted or convicted of either, can you claim
double jeopardy? YES! Because one was penalized by an
ordinance and one by a law. So look at this Diaz v. DLPC...
Diaz v. DLPC
In this case, you determine the similarity or if they fall under
the same offense and same __.
Because Atty. J. did not discuss this case (Diaz v.
DPLC), here in the ruling of the SC:
The Court notes that respondents initiated two separatecriminal actions, one for theft of electricity, Inv. Sheet
No. 593 July/1988,and the other, for Violation of P.D.
401, as amended by B.P. Blg. 876, I.S. No. 92-
4590. It must be stressed that theft of electricity is afelony defined and penalized under the Revised Penal
Code, while Violation of P.D. 401, as amended by B.P.
Blg. 876, is an offense punished by a special law. What
generally makes the former a felony is criminal intent
(dolo) or negligence (culpa); what makes the latter acrime is the special law enacting it.[126] In addition, the
elements of the two (2) offenses are different from oneanother. In theft, the elements are: (1) intent to gain;
(2) unlawful taking; (3) personal property belonging to
another; (4) and absence of violence or intimidationagainst persons or force upon things.[127] On the other
hand, the crime of Violation of P.D. 401, as amended by
B.P. Blg. 876, is mala prohibita. The criminal act is not
inherently immoral but becomes punishable only
because the law says it is forbidden. With these crimes,the sole issue is whether the law has been
violated. Criminal intent is not necessary.[128]
While the institution of separate criminal actions
under the provisions of P.D. 401, as amended by B.P. Blg.876, and under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on
theft may refer to identical acts committed by petitioner, the
prosecution thereof cannot be limited to one offense because
a single criminal act may give rise to a multiplicity of
offenses; and where there is variance or difference betweenthe elements of an offense in one law and another law, as inthe case at bar, there will be no double jeopardy because
what the rule on double jeopardy prohibits refers to identity
of elements in the two (2) offenses. Otherwise stated,
prosecution for the same act is not prohibited; what is
forbidden is prosecution for the same offense.[129] Hence, nofault could be attributed to respondent DLPC when it
instituted the two separate actions.
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
(Sec. 18)
Sec. 18, par. 1:
No person shall be detained solely by reason of his politicalbeliefs and aspirations. weve already discussed this
under Freedom of Expression.
Sec. 18, par. 2: is your involuntary servitude
No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a
punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have beenduly convicted.
GENERAL RULE:
Now, nobody can be forced to work for you or to serve evenif there is payment. But take note, in involuntary servitude
is under the Bill of Rights so this is addressed to the state.
EXCEPTIONS:
The state may require a person to render aservice involuntarily as a result of a penalty byreason of a commission of an offense.
In your Declaration of Principles, citizens mayunder certain circumstances be reuired to rendermilitary of civil service to defend the state.
In this case for petition for habeas corpus by Aclaracion...
Aclaracion v. Gatmaitan
Facts:
Aclaracion was a former stenographer of the CA. He already
ceased being a stenographer but there was a pending case
w/c he was the stenographer. The CA asked him to
transcribe his stenographic notes w/c he refused to do. So
he was cited for contempy and if there is contempt what is
the result penalty? Detention. He was imprisoned until he
makes the transcription. Sana mga law students na lng ang
pina transcribe nya . Now, in his petition for habeas
corpus, his novel argument is involuntary servitude. He
wanted to be freed from that work of transcribing. Is he
correct? Is that involuntary servitude?
Held:
The CA may compel a former court stenographer to
transcribe his stenographic notes. This prerogative is
ancilliary or incidental to its appellate jurisdiction and is a
part of its inherent powers w/c are necessary to the ordinary
exercise of its jurisdiction and essential w/ its administration
of justice. This is not involuntary servitude. It was hisobligation to transcribe that regardless if he has already
ceased being a court stenographer because it was his
obligation to transcribe everything.
What about a return to work order? In...
Sarmiento v. Tuico
Facts:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/160959.htm#_ftn126http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/160959.htm#_ftn126http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/160959.htm#_ftn126http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/160959.htm#_ftn127http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/160959.htm#_ftn127http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/160959.htm#_ftn127http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/160959.htm#_ftn128http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/160959.htm#_ftn128http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/160959.htm#_ftn128http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/160959.htm#_ftn129http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/160959.htm#_ftn129http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/160959.htm#_ftn129http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/160959.htm#_ftn129http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/160959.htm#_ftn128http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/160959.htm#_ftn127http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/april2007/160959.htm#_ftn1268/12/2019 consti 2 sec 18-22
12/15
12
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights)3rdExam Transcription
SY 2013-2014
Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as
Usually, if theres a labor dispute and theres a strike, NLRC
or the DOLE and the Sec. Of Labor will issue an order of
retun to work. Is that involuntary servitude? Now, when the
secretary makes a return to work order, this is a 2-fold
protection. 1.) One is for the employees who may be
prevented by the employer to come to work because theres
a strike. 2.) The other one will be for the employer whose
operation will be disrupted because of the return to work
order. But the more promordial reason for the return to
work order is not for the protection of the employee or
employer but rather for the economy, because it wud be the
economy w/c will be adversely affected by this disruption of
operation. For example its afactory, another is also sa skul
where teachers will hold a strike.
Held:
This is not involuntary servitude. The order does not so
much confers a right as it imposes a duty. And while as a
right may be waived, it must be discharged as a duty even
against the workers will. Returning to work in this situation
is not a matter of option or of voluntariness but a matter of
obligation. The worker must return to his job together w/ his
co-workers. So the obligations to the company can beresumed and it can continue serving the public in promoting
public interest. So this is the reason why this is not
considered as involuntary servitude.
PROHIBITED PENALTIES
(Sec. 19)
This prohibit certain penalties.
Sec. 19, par. 1:
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinouscrimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any deathpenalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.
Sec. 19, par. 2:
The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading
punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use ofsubstandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
conditions shall be dealt with by law.
REVIEW
As a review, w/c paragraph is self-executing? Are they
both self-executing? Are they both non self-executing?
The 2ndparagraph is non self-executing. What isyou basis? shall be dealt w/ by law.
meaning Congress has still to enact a law in orderto implement this Constitutional provision. But as
to fines, if it is to determine that such excessive
fines or the penalty is inhuman, it can be struck
down as unconstitutional/null and void.
But what is cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment?
In the case of...
Facts:
He was charged and convicted of malversation of funds inthe amount of P21K. But under the RPC which is enacted
when? 1930s dba? The penalty of that amount is already 11
yrs and 1 day of prision mayor as its minimum. Max. Of 16
yrs, 5 mos and 11 days for the amt of P21K. Is thisconsidered as cruel. Degrading and inhuman for excessive?
Held:
If it is cruel, degrading and inhuman, it may b struck down.
But the SC held that it is only if when the penalty has
become so flagrantly oppressive and so whollydisproportionate to the nature of the offense as to
shock the moral senses. This offense however is
addressed against a public officer and this relates toviolation of public trust. So the SC said that it is not
ready to struck this penalty as cruel, degrading and inhuman
as to shock the moral senses. So, this is valid!
People v. Dacuycuy
(RECALL THIS CASE)
This case relates to the undue delagation of legislative
powerswhere there is an alternative penalty of fine of thismuch and imprisonment at the discretion of the court for aperiod of approval. What the court did there was to
determine the period. The SC said that that is a judicial
determination.It shud have been a legislative function.
Because the imprisonment wud be from day 0 to a lifetime.
Hindi na provide ng Congress. So thats undue delegationof legislative authority.
Theres another argument there. The accused said that that
penalty of indefinite imprisonment is cruel, degrading and
inhuman.
Held:
No it is not! What is cruel, degrading and inhuman is one
that is barbarous! Barbarous one, unknown to the law
and wholly disproportionate to the nature of theoffense as to shock the moral sense of the community.
This is generally at the __ or character of the
punishment rather than __ in respect of duration or
amount.
So like imprisonment, its not cruel, not degrading, not
inhuman. This apply to punishments w/c never existed in
America, in American jurisprudence, or w/c __ as regarding
as cruel or obsolete. So this is addressed to the form rather
than the severity.
As to FORM- fine and imprisonment are not cruel,degrading and inhuman.
o What wud be an example of aninhuman, cruel or degrading form of
penalty? Before, in convicting a
criminal, they hang the convict to death.
So hanging, whipiing @ the post w/cwas penalty @ d tym of Christ, nailingto the cross, stretching the body by
wheels THESE USED TO BE
ACCEPTABLE PENALTIES. But under
Agbanlog v. People
8/12/2019 consti 2 sec 18-22
13/15
13
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights)3rdExam Transcription
SY 2013-2014
Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as
current norms or social standards, these
are now considered as cruel,
degrading and inhuman. For the
example, the crime is acts oflasciviousness and the penalty is goingto be disrobed in public. That wud
qualify as unconstitutional based on
this provision.
Echegaray v. Secretary
Facts:
Death penalty by injection. We said that, ok, death is an
acceptable form of penalty. Several societies are observingthis form of penalty. But, death by lethal injection???
They are qestioning that. Its cruel! Yun na lg nga ang
pinakamadali ehh.
Held:
All punishments are cruel. Cruel,inhuman and degrading
implies something that is barbarous. Death is just a mereextinguishment of life.So cruelty is inherent in the method
of punishment. So what is cruel and unusual must draw its
meaning from the evolving standards of decency. And thewidespread use of lethal injection indicates that it comports
w/ contemporary norms. Death as a penalty has beenacceptable/accepted even in the current or modern
society. But how to execute a person? Again, b4 they use to
execute a person by hanging, burn @ the stake (if u r being
charged of witchcraft) , firing squad (penalty of Rizal), death
by electric chair used to be , that was acceptable. But w/the evolving standards of society, what is acceptable now is
@ least lethal injection.
Neither shall death penalty shall be imposed (1987,Consti) : Is death penalty prohibited by the Consti? U look
@ the provision, the effect is by the __ of the Constitution,
all those death penalty there were already imposed were
reduced to reclusion perpetua. Can this be given
retroactive effect to those hu r awaiting the death chamber?YES! Bcoz this is favorable to the accused.
It will not stop Congress to impose death penalty thereafter
for compelling reasons. Thats why we have the heinouscrimes.
Echegaray v. Secretary
Facts:
And in the case of Echegaray, they questioned that law
bcoz the Congress did not state thecompelling reason.
Is it necessary for Congress to state in imposing death
penalty?
Held:
No need for Congress to state the compelling reason foreach and every heinous crime and such physical cruelties for
such compelling reason actually exist. The evil of the crimemay take various forms or crimes are degrading enough by
their nature ___. And there are those w/c are (paspas kaau
)
Maam did not discuss abt Lim v. People, I will just
post the full txt. This case is just short
Lim v. People (2002)
The constitutionality of PD 818, a decree which
amended Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code by
increasing the penalties for estafa committed by means of
bouncing checks, is being challenged in this petition for
certiorari, for being violative of the due process clause, theright to bail and the provision against cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment enshrined under the Constitution.
The antecedents of this case, as gathered from the
parties pleadings and documentary proofs, follow.
In December 1991, petitioner spouses issued to
private respondent two postdated checks, namely,Metrobank check no. 464728 dated January 15, 1992 in the
amount of P365,750 and Metrobank check no. 464743 dated
January 22, 1992 in the amount of P429,000. Check no.
464728 was dishonored upon presentment for having been
drawn against insufficient funds while check no. 464743 wasnot presented for payment upon request of petitioners who
promised to replace the dishonored check.
When petitioners reneged on their promise to cover
the amount of check no. 464728, the private respondentfiled a complaint-affidavit before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Quezon City charging petitioner spouses withthe crime of estafa under Article 315, par. 2 (d) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by PD 818.
On February 16, 2001, the City Prosecutor issued a
resolution finding probable cause against petitioners and
recommending the filing of an information for estafa with nobail recommended. On the same day, an information for the
crime of estafa was filed with Branch 217 of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City against petitioners. The case was
docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-01-101574. Thereafter,
the trial court issued a warrant for the arrest of herein
petitioners, thus:
It appearing on the face of the information and fromsupporting affidavit of the complaining witness and its
annexes that probable cause exists, that the crime chargedwas committed and accused is probably guilty thereof, let a
warrant for the arrest of the accused be issued.
No Bail Recommended.
SO ORDERED.[1]
On July 18, 2001, petitioners filed an Urgent Motion
to Quash Information and Warrant of Arrest which was
denied by the trial court. Likewise, petitioners motion forbail filed on July 24, 2001 was denied by the trial court on
the same day. Petitioner Jovencio Lim was arrested by
virtue of the warrant of arrest issued by the trial court and
was detained at the Quezon City Jail. However, petitioner
Teresita Lim remained at large.
On August 22, 2001, petitioners filed the instantpetition for certiorari imputing grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the lower court and the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Quezon City, arguing that PD 818 violates the
constitutional provisions on due process, bail and impositionof cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment.
In a resolution dated February 26, 2002, this Courtgranted the petition of Jovencio Lim to post bail pursuant to
Department of Justice Circular No. 74 dated November 6,
2001 which amended the 2000 Bail Bond Guide involving
estafa under Art icle 315, par. 2 (d), and qualified
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn18/12/2019 consti 2 sec 18-22
14/15
14
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights)3rdExam Transcription
SY 2013-2014
Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as
theft. Said Circular specifically provides as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
3) Where the amount of fraud is P32,000.00 orover in which the imposable penalty
is reclusion temporalto reclusion perpetua,
bail shall be based on reclusion
temporalmaximum, pursuant to Par. 2 (a)
of the 2000 Bail Bond Guide, multiplied byP2,000.00, plus an additional of P2,000.00
for every P10,000.00 in excess of
P22,000.00; Provided, however, that the
total amount of bail shall not exceed
P60,000.00.
In view of the aforementioned resolution, the matter
concerning bail shall no longer be discussed. Thus, this
decision will focus on whether or not PD 818 violatesSections 1 and 19 of Article III of the Constitution, which
respectively provide:
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws.
x x x
Section 19 (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. x x x.
We shall deal first with the issue of whether PD 818
was enacted in contravention of Section 19 of Article III of
the Constitution. In this regard, the impugned provision of
PD 818 reads as follows:
SECTION 1. Any person who shall defraud another bymeans of false pretenses or fraudulent acts as defined in
paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 4885, shall be punished by:
1
st
. The penalty of reclusion temporalif the amount of thefraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000pesos, and if such amount exceeds the later sum, thepenalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its
maximum period, adding one year for each additional
10,000 pesos but the total penalty which may be imposed
shall in no case exceed thirty years. In such cases, and in
connection with the accessory penalties which may beimposed under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty shall be
termed reclusion perpetua;
2nd. The penalty of prision mayorin its maximum period, if
the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not
exceed 12,000 pesos.
3rd. The penalty of prision mayorin its medium period, ifsuch amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000
pesos; and
4th. Byprision mayor in itsminimum period, if such amount
does not exceed 200 pesos.
Petitioners contend that, inasmuch as the amount ofthe subject check is P365,750, they can be penalized
with reclusion perpetuaor 30 years of imprisonment. This
penalty, according to petitioners, is too severe and
disproportionate to the crime they committed and infringes
on the express mandate of Article III, Section 19 of theConstitution which prohibits the infliction of cruel, degrading
and inhuman punishment.
Settled is the rule that a punishment authorized bystatute is not cruel, degrading or disproportionate to the
nature of the offense unless it is flagrantly and plainly
oppressive and wholly disproportionate to the nature of the
offense as to shock the moral sense of the community. It
takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out ofproportion or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the
Constitution.[2]
Based on this principle, the Court hasconsistently overruled contentions of the defense that the
penalty of fine or imprisonment authorized by the statute
involved is cruel and degrading.
In People vs. Tongko,[3]this Court held that theprohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is
generally aimed at the form or character of the punishment
rather than its severity in respect of its duration or amount,and applies to punishments which never existed in America
or which public sentiment regards as cruel or obsolete. Thisrefers, for instance, to those inflicted at the whipping post or
in the pillory, to burning at the stake, breaking on the
wheel, disemboweling and the like. The fact that the
penalty is severe provides insufficient basis to declare a law
unconstitutional and does not, by that circumstance alone,make it cruel and inhuman.
Petitioners also argue that while PD 818 increased theimposable penalties for estafa committed under Article 315,par. 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, it did not increase the
amounts corresponding to the said new penalties. Thus, the
original amounts provided for in the Revised Penal Codehave remained the same notwithstanding that they have
become negligible and insignificant compared to the present
value of the peso.
This argument is without merit. The primary purpose
of PD 818 is emphatically and categorically stated in thefollowing:
WHEREAS, reports received of late indicate an upsurge of
estafa (swindling) cases committed by means of bouncingchecks;
WHEREAS, if not checked at once, these criminal acts woulderode the peoples confidence in the use of negotiableinstruments as a medium of commercial transaction and
consequently result in the retardation of trade and
commerce and the undermining of the banking system of
the country;
WHEREAS, it is vitally necessary to arrest and curb the risein this kind of estafa cases by increasing the existing
penalties provided therefor.
Clearly, the increase in the penalty, far from being
cruel and degrading, was motivated by a laudable purpose,
namely, to effectuate the repression of an evil that
undermines the countrys commercial and economic growth,and to serve as a necessary precaution to deter people from
issuing bouncing checks. The fact that PD 818 did not
increase the amounts corresponding to the new penaltiesonly proves that the amount is immaterial and
inconsequential. What the law sought to avert was theproliferation of estafa cases committed by means of
bouncing checks. Taking into account the salutary purpose
for which said law was decreed, we conclude that PD 818
does not violate Section 19 of Article III of the Constitution.
Moreover, when a law is questioned before the Court,the presumption is in favor of its constitutionality. To justify
its nullification, there must be a clear and unmistakable
breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative
one.[4]The burden of proving the invalidity of a law rests on
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn28/12/2019 consti 2 sec 18-22
15/15
15
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights)3rdExam Transcription
SY 2013-2014
Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as
those who challenge it. In this case, petitioners failed to
present clear and convincing proof to defeat thepresumption of constitutionality of PD 818.
With respect to the issue of whether PD 818 infringes
on Section 1 of Article III of the Constitution, petitioners
claim that PD 818 is violative of the due process clause of
the Constitution as it was not published in the OfficialGazette. This claim is incorrect and must be rejected.
Publication, being an indispensable part of due process, isimperative to the validity of laws, presidential decrees and
executive orders.[5]PD 818 was published in the Official
Gazette on December 1, 1975.[6]
With the foregoing considerations in mind, this Courtupholds the constitutionality of PD 818.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
(Sec. 20)
No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of apoll tax.
This is a Constitutional right. But debt here wud refer to
civil obligation. So this s a PRIVATE AFFAIR private
to private matter. So this wud mean private persons.
Between the creditor and the debtor. The remedy is
therefore CIVIL not CRIMINAL. Now, poverty in itself is
a penalty . Why wud u penalize a person bcoz he is poor?
So it is a Constitutional right not to be imprisoned for debt
for non-payment of poll tax.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/149276.htm#_edn5