consti 2 sec 18-22

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


SY 2013-2014


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


SY 2013-2014


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


SY 2013-2014


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


SY 2013-2014


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


SY 2013-2014


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


SY 2013-2014


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


SY 2013-2014


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


SY 2013-2014


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


SY 2013-2014


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


SY 2013-2014


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#_ftn126

8/12/2019 consti 2 sec 18-22

12/15

12


SY 2013-2014


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


SY 2013-2014


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#_edn1

8/12/2019 consti 2 sec 18-22

14/15

14


SY 2013-2014


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#_edn2

8/12/2019 consti 2 sec 18-22

15/15

15


SY 2013-2014


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

Documents

consti 2 sec 18-22