our Bill of Rights deals with two
(2) kinds of double jeopardy.
The first sentence of clause 20, section
1, Article III of the Constitution, ordains that "no person shall be
twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense."
The second sentence of said clause provides
that "if an act is punishable by a law and an ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for
the same act."
Thus, the first sentence prohibits double jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense, whereas the second contemplates double
jeopardy of punishment for the same act. Under the first sentence, one
may be twice put in jeopardy of punishment of the same act provided that
he is charged with different offenses, or the offense charged in one
case is not included in or does not include, the crime charged in the
other case. The second sentence applies, even if the offenses charged
are not the same, owing to the fact that one constitutes a violation of
an ordinance and the other a violation of a statute. If the two charges
are based on one and the same act conviction or acquittal under either
the law or the ordinance shall bar a prosecution under the other. 12 Incidentally,
such conviction or acquittal is not indispensable to sustain the plea
of double jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. So long as
jeopardy has attached under one of the informations charging said
offense, the defense may be availed of in the other case involving the
same offense, even if there has been neither conviction nor acquittal in
either case.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN RELOVA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, Second Branch, and MANUEL OPULENCIA, respondents.
1 comment:
curry 5 shoes
jordan 4
adidas ultra
coach outlet sale
yeezy boost
adidas stan smith shoes
lebron 16
coach outlet online
canada goose
longchamp
Post a Comment