CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) 3rd Exam Transcription SY 2013-2014

DOUBLE JEOPARDY (Sec. 21) I. 1st JEOPARDY ATTACHES

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 another prosecution 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.

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: 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 acquitted there or convicted; to set the effects at rest, assuring the accused he shall not thereafter be subjected to anxiety for the 2nd charge of the same offense. REQUISITES (for double jeopardy to lie) : a.) b.) There must be a 1st jeopardy there must be a 1st jeopardy so that you can claim thereafter a 2nd jeopardy. Thats why you call it double. The 2nd jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the 1st. 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 to him, 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 as not 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

DISCUSSION OF THE REQUISITES: a.) 1st jeopardy attaches

the 1st jeopardy must be attached prior to the 2nd. -if you say that the 1st jeopardy already attaches, based on the existence of the ff. elements: Valid complaint/info. or other formal charge sufficient to convict the accused. The complaint/info. must be filed b4 a competent court. The accused has been arraigned and he has entered his valid plea. The 1st jeopardy must have been validly terminated. the case has been dismissed or otherwise terminated w/o the express consent of the accused.

Remember the elements for the 1st jeopardy: Upon a valid complaint or info. Competent court Arraignment & plea 1st jeopardy must have been validly terminated.

*Lacking one, you cannot say that the accused has been put in __.

Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) 3rd Exam Transcription 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. Facts: 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? Facts: Yes! Because the 1st dismissal was based on an invalid information. Compare that w/ Lasoy v. Zenarosa Facts: 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. 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 the jurisdiction 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. 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 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: 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

Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) 3rd Exam Transcription 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. 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

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 1 st 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. Joven Facts: 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 been validly terminated -the 1st case has ended, bcoz that is the only time that the 2nd prosecution/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

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 1 st 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 2nd jeopardy. 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 any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or of any offense which necessarily includes or necessarily included in the offense charged in the former 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 2nd jeopardy because in the 1 st instance, the case

Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) 3rd Exam Transcription 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 double jeopardy. 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 2nd prosecution. 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 1st jeopardy has already attached. Dismissal w/o the consent of the accused 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 s ilence 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 2nd time for an offense is as important as the other constitutional rights. So you 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 was dismissed 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 prosecutor hindi motion ng jeopardy does not attach. when dismissal is made w/o therefore, w/o jurisdiction or w/ discretion amounting to lack jurisdiction. motion of the accused. Still, due process grave abuse of or excess of

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.

b.)

c.)

Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) 3rd Exam Transcription 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 is invalid! 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. 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 the accused, 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 the accused, 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.

It also does not attach if the case was terminated w/o the consent 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

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 of the 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 the court 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 the accused, but it this case, since it was an invocation of a constitutional right, the dismissal 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. 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 also to the right to be presumed innocent. Now we said that it is the duty of the prosecutor to prove his case 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

b.)

Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) 3rd Exam Transcription SY 2013-2014

silent, in the proceeding of criminal cases, in criminal proceedings, it is always, as a general rule, the prosecutor who will 1st present his evidence. It is always 1st the 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 the accused. The accused will now have his turn to present his own countervailing evidence. What happens, if after presenting all the evidence of the prosecution, it is very clear that he has not established a prima facie case against the accused? 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 not necessary. So what you can file is a demurer of evidence. 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, based on 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 would be 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 1st place? Actually, any party, whether its the prosecution or the accused who will appeal from the judgement or final order. The only caveat is that 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, if you 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 of his right against double jeopardy. And the caveat, the danger is that, he closed the whole case open for review by the appellate court. 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 especially if you are for the defense. Why? 1.) You have the right to remain silent 2.) 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 the right 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 only when 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 abuse of 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 appeal it! The SC said, a verdict of acquittal is immediately final and a 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, and the law does not provide for exceptions, other than deprivation of due process or grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances, because you are not questioning an error of judgement but an error of jurisdiction. It is elementary therefore that the rule against double jeopardy 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 will only 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.

Appeal and Double Jeopardy

--end-- I will continue to transcribe the last discussion of Atty. J for Consti II

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 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 is intending 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.

Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) 3rd Exam Transcription SY 2013-2014

Again, the constitutional right of double jeopardy prohibits an appeal from the judgement of acquittal. And the only exception 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 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 availab le. 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 double jeopardy. 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 its promulgation. It cannot be recalled for correction or ammendment.

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 presumption of 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 the CA, 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

Argel v. Pascua Facts: 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 act ually 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.

Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) 3rd Exam Transcription 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 a penalty contrary to law. In... aside the judgement of conviction b4 it becomes final.

Palu-ay v. CA 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 his right 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, a judgement of conviction may upon the motion of the accused 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! Okay, lets recall the requirements: For double jeopardy to apply, we said that 1 st, there must be a 1st jeopardy that has attached. So it will attach ultimately when the 1st jeopardy 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 offense which is that applicable 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 any offense w/c necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged. Ex: Muder necessarily includes homicide. Or, serious physical injuries would be included in frustrated 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 or identical offense though the later be lesser or greater than the former will determine the identity of the offense. Are they identical? The rule of 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 1st jeopardy has already attached because this other prosecution will now expose or place the accused to double jeopardy. RECALL

REVIEW

When the judgement is one for acquittal, can the state make an appeal? No! Because it places the accused in double jeopardy! But if it is for conviction, this time, can the state make an appeal? Still no! Because it places the accused 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

Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) 3rd Exam Transcription SY 2013-2014

identical (the rule of identity), if they are, they are considered as same offense. And once there is already a prior charge, conviction or acquittal, then a subsequent charging is already proscribe by double jeopardy. Theres a thing that we call INSEPARABLE OFFENSE 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 smoke opium 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 that then 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 to another 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 a fromer 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... action of the defendant. So the defendant is still the person responsible for the death. Its different when he dies in the hands 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 2 nd jeopardy 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 TO SEVERAL 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 there may be separate prosecutions for each offenses. Example is in the case of...

II.

THE 2ND JEOPARDY MUST BE FOR THE SAME 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 the time 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 1 st prosecution, 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 the victim died. He died, the direct cause of his death is the

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:

Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) 3rd Exam Transcription 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 2 nd charge is one for theft. Theft of electricity under the Revised Penal Act or RPC. What happened actually here is that, when the 1st charge was made, his defense was prescription, because under the city ordinance, it shud be filed w/in 2 mos. From discovery 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 1st sentence, 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 an ordinance, 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 2nd sentence, 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 same act 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 the Revised Penal Code and another law like a special law. For example, 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 2nd sentence, 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 punished by an ordinance. So, IDENTITY OF ACTS is the point of inquiry. The same act punishable by ordinance, punishable by law. Now as to the 1st sentence, as long as the offenses are related/similar, its the same offense, even if they are punsihed by the RPC, a special law, diff. sections/provisions of the same statute, then you call that SAME OFFENSE. So the easy point of determination is just to determine w/n the 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 the RPC. Ok! You look for the answer. Thats my 2 nd assignment to you.

10

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

Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) 3rd Exam Transcription 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. No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations. weve already discussed this under Freedom of Expression. Sec. 18, par. 2: is your involuntary servitude Another, for singing videoke after 11 oclock PM because it was your birthday and for meron din tayong religious activities din doon, anung tawag dun na offense? Disturbing religious service, yun ba yun? So the same act of singing if you 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... No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Sec. 18, par. 1: INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE (Sec. 18)

11

Diaz v. DLPC

GENERAL RULE: Now, nobody can be forced to work for you or to serve even if 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 a service involuntarily as a result of a penalty by reason of a commission of an offense. In your Declaration of Principles, citizens may under certain circumstances be reuired to render military of civil service to defend the state. In this case for petition for habeas corpus by Aclaracion...

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 separate criminal 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. 924590. It must be stressed that theft of electricity is a felony 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 a crime is the special law enacting it.[126] In addition, the elements of the two (2) offenses are different from one another. In theft, the elements are: (1) intent to gain; (2) unlawful taking; (3) personal property belonging to another; (4) and absence of violence or intimidation against 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 between the elements of an offense in one law and another law, as in the 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, no fault could be attributed to respondent DLPC when it instituted the two separate actions.

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 his obligation 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:

Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) 3rd Exam Transcription 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 a factory, 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 be resumed 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) In the case of... Agbanlog v. People Facts: He was charged and convicted of malversation of funds in the 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 this considered 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 wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral senses. This offense however is addressed against a public officer and this relates to violation 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 powers where there is an alternative penalty of fine of this much and imprisonment at the discretion of the court for a period 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 delegation of 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 the offense 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 an inhuman, cruel or degrading form of penalty? Before, in convicting a criminal, they hang the convict to death. So hanging, whipiing @ the post w/c was penalty @ d tym of Christ, nailing to the cross, stretching the body by wheels THESE USED TO BE ACCEPTABLE PENALTIES. But under

12

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 heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty 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 of substandard 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 2nd paragraph is non self-executing. What is you basis? shall be dealt w/ by law. meaning Congress has still to enact a law in order to 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?

Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) 3rd Exam Transcription SY 2013-2014

current norms or social standards, these are now considered as cruel, degrading and inhuman. For the example, the crime is acts of lasciviousness and the penalty is going to 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 observing this 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 mere extinguishment 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 the widespread use of lethal injection indicates that it comports w/ contemporary norms. Death as a penalty has been acceptable/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 heinous crimes. Echegaray v. Secretary Facts: And in the case of Echegaray, they questioned that law bcoz the Congress did not state the compelling reason. Is it necessary for Congress to state in imposing death penalty? Held: No need for Congress to state the compelling reason for each and every heinous crime and such physical cruelties for such compelling reason actually exist. The evil of the crime may 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, the right 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 was not 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 respondent filed a complaint-affidavit before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City charging petitioner spouses with the 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 no bail 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 from supporting affidavit of the complaining witness and its annexes that probable cause exists, that the crime charged was 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 for bail 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 instant petition 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 imposition of cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment. In a resolution dated February 26, 2002, this Court granted 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 Article 315, par. 2 (d), and qualified

13

Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) 3rd Exam Transcription SY 2013-2014

theft. Said Circular specifically provides as follows: xxx xxx xxx and inhuman punishment. Settled is the rule that a punishment authorized by statute 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 of proportion or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitution.[2] Based on this principle, the Court has consistently 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 the prohibition 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. This refers, 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 the imposable 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 Code have 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 the following: WHEREAS, reports received of late indicate an upsurge of estafa (swindling) cases committed by means of bouncing checks; WHEREAS, if not checked at once, these criminal acts would erode the peoples confidence in the use of negotiable instruments 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 rise in 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 penalties only proves that the amount is immaterial and inconsequential. What the law sought to avert was the proliferation 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

14

3) Where the amount of fraud is P32,000.00 or over in which the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, bail shall be based on reclusion temporal maximum, pursuant to Par. 2 (a) of the 2000 Bail Bond Guide, multiplied by P2,000.00, 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 violates Sections 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 by means 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: 1st. The penalty of reclusion temporal if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the later sum, the penalty 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 be imposed under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty shall be termed reclusion perpetua; 2nd. The penalty of prision mayor in 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 mayor in its medium period, if such amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and 4th. By prision mayor in its minimum period, if such amount does not exceed 200 pesos. Petitioners contend that, inasmuch as the amount of the subject check is P365,750, they can be penalized with reclusion perpetua or 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 the Constitution which prohibits the infliction of cruel, degrading

Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) 3rd Exam Transcription SY 2013-2014

those who challenge it. In this case, petitioners failed to present clear and convincing proof to defeat the presumption 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 Official Gazette. This claim is incorrect and must be rejected. Publication, being an indispensable part of due process, is imperative 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 Court upholds the constitutionality of PD 818. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

15

NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT (Sec. 20)

No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll 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.

Transcriptions based on the class discussion of Atty. Rovyne Jumao-as