Double Jeopardy

Section 6. Order sustaining the motion to quash not a bar to another  prosecution; exception

   - An order sustaining a MTQ is not a bar to another  prosecution for the same offense

     EXCEPTIONS: When the ground for the MTQ is any of the following:
     1. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished
     2. Double Jeopardy

Section 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy

1. No person shall be put twice in jeopardy for the SAME OFFENSE
2. When an act punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall be a bar to another prosecution for the SAME ACT

   - There is identity between two offenses not only when the second offense is exactly the same as the first, but also when the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the first offense or is an attempt or frustration thereof

     1. The graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising out of the same act or omission              constituting the former charge
     2. The facts constituting the graver offense became known or were discovered only after a plea                was entered in the former complaint or information.
     3. The plea of guilty to a lesser offense was made without the consent of the prosecutor and the                offended party

1. first jeopardy must have attached
2. first jeopardy must have been terminated
3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense or the second offense includes or is necessarily       included in the offense charged in the first information or is an attempt or frustration thereof.

1. valid complaint or information
2. court of competent jurisdiction
3. valid arraignment
4. valid plea
5. the defendant was acquitted, convicted, or the case was dismissed without his express consent or        authority.

NOTE: In order to raise double jeopardy for the SAME ACT, there must be an acquittal or conviction. For double jeopardy for the SAME OFFENSE it is sufficient that the case was dismissed without his express consent.

Perez vs. CA, 163 SCRA 236 (1988)
- If a single act is punished by two different laws, but each requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not require, conviction or acquittal in one will not bar a prosecution for the other.

Ex. Violation of BP 22 and Estafa

Double Jeopardy will not apply in case of a conviction of a crime under a special law, which also constitutes an offense under the Revised Penal Code. This is because the former is malum prohibitum, while the latter is mala in se.

In order for double jeopardy to attach, the judgment must be reading its entirety (promulgation of judgment). If only the dispositive portion is read, then double jeopardy will not attach.

Test for “Valid Complaint or Information”
 - In general, if it can support a valid conviction. This means that all the necessary elements of the crime are alleged.

What is controlling for purposes of determining the presence of double jeopardy is the crime charged in the complaint not the crime proven in trial.

Dismissal vs. Acquittal
1. Dismissal - Does not decide the case on the merits, does not determine defendant’s guilt or innocence.
Acquittal - Always based on the merits. Defendant is acquitted because  guilt wasn’t proven beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Dismissal - Double Jeopardy will not always attach.
Acquittal - Double Jeopardy always attaches.

1. Demurrer to evidence
2. Dismissal due to violation of right to speedy trial (even if  dismissal was upon motion of the accused or with his express consent)

Rules Regarding “Without Express Consent”
- If dismissal was upon motion of the accused or counsel, such is deemed to be with defendant’s express consent.

Silence of the accused does not mean consent.

Statement of “no objection” is express consent.

Rules Regarding State Witnesses
- An order discharging an accused as a state witness amounts to an acquittal, hence double jeopardy will apply.

However, if he fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement, he may be prosecuted again.