Clarificatory points from Dad re double jeopardy:

There is double jeopardy only for the same offense, not for the same act.
It is possible that the Accused did only one act, but his act is punishable by two
laws. If each law requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not,
there is no double jeopardy. If the accused is acquitted under one law, he can
still be prosecuted or convicted under the other law.
Example of no double jeopardy: People vs. Tinamisan (G. R. No. L-4081,Jan.
29, 1952). First crime -- illegal fishing using explosives (when you fish using
explosives); Second crime -- illegal possession of explosives (no permit to
possess explosives). Note that these two crimes involved only one act, one set
of facts. But SC said there was no double jeopardy because the two offenses
were of different nature.
Test: Do the offenses charged in the two Informations involve the same law?
Note, however, that the rule on double jeopardy has been relaxed by the SC in
the case of People vs. Elkanish. In this case, an information of illegal
possession of blasting caps was declared to be a bar to a second information
for illegal importation of the same blasting caps. Supposedly, possession
and importation are two different offenses, but the SC said there was double
jeopardy. Here was the SCs justification: When one imports something into
the Philippines, he necessarily has the possession of it. The importer is a
possessor. He has only one objective that is, to sell or dispose for profit the
thing he imported.
Mika, your prof might ask something that was mentioned in the Elkanish
decision. In the Elkanish case, it was mentioned in passing that the scenario is
different when the offenses involved are (1) smoking opium and (2) possession
of a pipe (for opium). Smoking of opium is an end in itself; while possession of
pipe may not necessarily end in smoking opium using a pipe. When you possess
pipe, you may either sell it or keep the pipe it as part of an equipment for
running an opium den. In contrast, importation and possession of blasting caps
has only one aim - that is, to sell or dispose for profit the blasting caps that
were imported.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSEPH ELKANISH

(G.R. No. L-2666, September 26, 1951)

Facts:

While S.S. "Washington Mail" was anchored in Manila, 65 large boxes of blasting caps
were found and seized by the authorities. Said blasting caps (or explosives) were
traced to the ownership of Elkanish; hence, two separate informations were filed
against him on the same date, one charging him with illegal importation of the
articles (explosives) under the Revised Administrative Code, and the other, illegal
possession of the same articles under a different law.

He was arraigned and entered the plea of not guilty on the information for illegal
possession. As for the illegal importation case, Elkanish moved to quash the
information on the grounds that the prosecution for importation is barred by the
prosecution for illegal possession (in other words, double jeopardy).

The CFI Judge dismissed the information for illegal possession of explosives on the
ground of double jeopardy.

Issue: Was the Judge correct in dismissing the information for illegal possession of
explosives on the ground of double jeopardy?

Held: Yes, the judge was correct; there was double jeopardy.

The importation and possession of blasting caps are juridically identical. There can
hardly be importation without possession. When one brings something or causes

something to be brought into the country, he necessarily has the possession of it. The
importer is a possessor in the legal sense.

When a person has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents
included in it, he can not be a second time tried for one of those incidents without
being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.

The protection against being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense is not only a
legislative creation but secured by the Constitution

Importation and possession represent only one criminal intent, one volition. The
design was to sell or dispose of the blasting caps for profit, the importation and
possession being no more than means to accomplish that purpose.