Bill of Rights - Section 21 - Section 21 No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense If an act is punished by a law and

Bill of Rights - Section 21 - Section 21 No person shall be...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 23 pages.

Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. Dismissal at Preliminary Investigation; No Jeopardy Attachment of jeopardy A complaint for physical injuries was filed against the accused. Upon arraignment, the defendant pleaded not guilty to the information; whereupon the private prosecutor, with the concurrence of the deputy provincial fiscal, moved for the dismissal of the case. Eleven days later, the acting provincial fiscal filed another information in the same justice of the peace court, charging the same defendant with the same offense of serious physical injuries. When does jeopardy of punishment attach? Answer: Jeopardy attaches (a) upon a good indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment and (d) after plea. People v. Ylagan - 58 PHIL. 851 Aurelio Balisacan was charged with homicide in the CFI of Ilocos Norte . Upon being arraigned, he entered into a plea of guilty. In doing so, he was assisted y counsel. At his counsel de officio, he was allowed to present evidence and consequently testified that he stabbed the deceased in self-defense. In addition, he stated that he surrendered himself voluntarily to the police authorities. On the basis of the testimony of the accused, he was acquitted. Thus, the prosecution appealed. Whether or Not the appeal placed the accused in double jeopardy ? Answer: The Supreme Court held that it is settled that the existence of pleais an essential requisite to double jeopardy. The accused had first entered aplea of guilty but however testified that he acted in complete self-defense. Said testimony had the effect of vacating his plea of guilty and the court a quo should have required him to plead a new charge, or at least direct that a new plea of not guilty be entered for him. This was not done. Therefore, there has been no standing of plea during the judgment of acquittal, so there can be no double jeopardy with respect to the appeal herein. People vs. Balisacan, G.R. No. L-26376 Cirilo Cinco seeks the reversal of a resolution issued by respondent Sandiganbayan which denied petitioners’ motion to quash criminal cases. Petitioner avers that they are put in double jeopardy of being charged with informations of crimes other than the crime imputed. Accused contended that the preliminary investigation followed by the filing of information violated accused’s right against double jeopardy? Answer: No. Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and it is often that only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the fiscal to prepare his complain or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty therefor, and it does not place the person against whom it is taken in jeopardy.
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 23 pages?

  • Fall '16

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes