CHAPTER 20: RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED with respect to cases cognizable by the MTCC, the prosecutor shall The
to cases cognizable by the MTCC, the prosecutor shall The right may be claimed not only by the person accused of an
Criminal Due Process
Sec.14 (1) No Person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law.
This section is restricted to criminal cases only & purely to their
procedural requirements.
It requires the accused be tried by an impartial & competent court
in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law & with proper
observance of all the rights accorded to him under the
Constitution & the applicable statutes.
Denial of the right to preliminary investigation in the absence of a
valid waiver will constitute of denial to due process.
As Justice Ynares-Santiago put it in Sales vs Sandiganbayan:
While the right to preliminary investigation is statutory rather
than constitutional in-its fundament, it is a component part of
due process in criminal justice. The right to have a preliminary
investigation conducted before being bound over to trial for a
criminal offense & hence formally at risk incarceration or some
other penalty is not a mere formal or technical right, it is
substantive right. To deny the accuseds claim to a preliminary
investigation would be to deprive him of the full measure of his
right to due process.
On the other hand, SC has ruled that the Ombudsman need not
conduct a preliminary investigation upon receipt of a complaint if
it is found to be utterly devoid of merit by his investigating
officers. It has upheld the power of the Ombudsman to dismiss a
complaint outright without a preliminary investigation. The
Ombudsman has full discretion to determine whether a criminal
case should be filed, including whether a preliminary investigation
is warranted.
The conduct of preliminary investigation is like court proceedings,
subject to the requirements of both substantive & procedural.
A preliminary investigation is considered as a judicial proceeding
wherein the prosecutor or investigating officer by nature of his
functions, acts as a quasi-judicial officer. The authority of the
prosecutor or investigating officer is no less than that of a
municipal judge or even an RTC judge.
Borlingan v Pena, decided on the basis of the 1985 Rules of
Criminal Procedurem which authorized MTCC to conduct
preliminary investigation, SC said that in cases cognizable by the
said courts, the conduct of a preliminary investigation is not
mandatory. It ruled that upon the filing of the complaint & affidavit
take the appropriate action based on the affidavits & other
supporting documents submitted by the complainant. The
prosecutor may either dismiss the complaint if he does not see
sufficient reason to proceed with the case or file information if he
finds probable cause.
When an accused pleads to the charge, he is deemed to have
waived the right to preliminary investigation & the right to
question any irregularity that surrounds it.
A mistrial is declared if it is shown that the proceedings were held
under such circumstances as would prevent the accused from
freely making his defence or the judge from freely arriving at his
decision.
Martelino v Alejandro, SC declared that the spate of publicity in
this case did not focus on the guilt of the petitioners but rather on
the responsibility of the Government for what was claimed to be a
massacre of Muslim trainees. If there was trial by newspaper at
all, it was not of the petitioners but of the Government. Absent
here is a showing of failure of the court martial to protect the
accused from massive publicity encouraged by those connected
with the conduct of the trial either by a failure to control the
release of information or to remove the trial to another venue or
to postpone it until the deluge of prejudicial publicity shall have
subsided. Due process is also denied where a person is impleaded
for violation of a law, administrative regulation or municipal
ordinance not previously published as he would not know what
acts he must do or avoid preventing prosecution. Where appeal is
permitted by the Constitution or by statute, denial thereof will also
militate against due process.
Self Incrimination
Section 17 No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself.
Right against self-incrimination has its roots in the common law &
is based on humanitarian & practical considerations.
Humanitarian because it is intended to prevent the state, with
all its coercive powers from extracting from the suspect testimony
that may convict him. Practical because a person subjected to
When available:
such compulsion is likely to perjure himself for his own protection.
Right is available in criminal prosecution & all government
proceedings including civil actions & administrative or legislative
investigations.
offense but by any witness to whom an incriminating question is
addressed.
Right of the accused against self-incrimination may be invoked in
administrative investigations that partake of the nature of or are
analogous to criminal proceedings.
Scope:
As long as the question will tend to incriminate, the
witness is entitled to the privilege. In all other cases the
witness:
o May refuse to answer provided the question is
relevant & otherwise allowed even if the answer may tend
embarrass him or subject to him to civil liability.
o The right may not be invoked where the question
asked relates to a past criminality for which the witness can
no longer be prosecuted, as where the crime has already
prescribed or he has already been acquitted or convicted
thereof.
o May refuse to answer where he has been previously
granted immunity under a validly enacted statute.
US v Tan Teng, where a person charge with rape was examined
for gonorrhoea which might have been transmitted to the
victim, the SC held the examination to be valid saying it was no
different from examining his fingerprints or other parts or
features of his body for identification purposes.
Holt vs United States, The prohibition of compelling a man in a
criminal court to be a witness against himself is a prohibition of
the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as
evidence when it may be material.
Social Justice vs Dangerous Drugs Board, the court finds no
valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons
accused of crimes. The SC has considered as violative of this
right as well as the right to privacy, Sec. 36(f) of RA No. 9165,
which requires all persons charged before the prosecutors
office with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty of
imprisonment of not less than 6 years & 1 day shall undergo a
mandatory drug test.
As a rule, the privilege against self-incrimination may be
invoked only when & as the incriminating question is asked,
since the witness has no way of knowing in advance the nature
or effect of the question to be put to him.
 In the case of accused himself, it is settled that he can refuse at
the outset & altogether to take the stand as a witness for the
prosecution, on the reasonable assumption that the purpose of
his interrogation will be to incriminate him.
Waiver:
The right against self-incrimination may be waived, either
directly or by a failure to invoke it, provided the waiver is
certain & unequivocal & intelligently, understandingly
willingly made.
When a person fails to invoke this right at the right time, or
when for instance, he is asked to provide samples of his
signature, he is deemed to have waived the same.
Custodial Investigation
Sec. 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent & to have competent
& independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the
person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except
deemed critical stages in the criminal process as held in People
vs Sunga.
Philcomsat Holdings Corporation vs Senate, the Court ruled that
the right to counsel may not be invoked by resource persons in
the public hearings conducted by the Congress.
Tanenggeevs People, a written statement made in the course of
an administrative investigation & given voluntarily, knowingly &
& intelligently, would be admissible in evidence against him.
According to RA 7438, custodial investigation shall include the
practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated
in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed,
without prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for any
violation of the law.
For extrajudicial confession to be admissible must be:
1) Voluntary
2) With assistance of counsel
3) In writing
4) Express
Landmark case of Miranda vs Arizona, the US Supreme Court
declared among others that: the prosecution may not use
statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from
this is not considered part of the custodial investigation & the
Court explained in People vs Lara that during a police line-up, the
process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the
accusatory & it is usually the witness or the complainant who is
interrogated & who gives a statement in the course of the line-
up.
People vs Lucero, the counsel de oficio was present at the start of
the custodial investigation of the accused but left after a while to
attend the wake of a friend. The next morning, two CIS agents
took Lucero & his signed confession to the lawyers house, & the
lawyer asked him if he had freely signed it. When the accused said
yes, the lawyer also signed the same. The Court rejected the
confession, holding that the Constitution requires not just any
kind of counsel but effective & vigilant counsel.
People vs Cachuela, an extrajudicial confession made with the
assistance of a lawyer provided by the same agency, NBI, which
was conducting the investigation cannot be considered as
admissible evidence.
An effective & vigilant counsel necessarily & logically requires

in writing & in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal & civil sanctions for
violations of this section as well as compensation to &
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, &
their families.
It is any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a
person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
freedom of action in any significant way. (Miranda vs Arizona)
It begins when there is no longer a general inquiry into an
unsolved crime & the investigation has started to focus on a
particular person as a suspect.
People vs Bokingo, the Court considered as inadmissible the
statements of the accused made without assistance of counsel
during his preliminary investigation during which he mentioned his
plan to kill the victim. Restating the Courts earlier ruling, the right
to counsel applies in certain pre-trial proceedings that can be
custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates
the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege
against self-incriminations.
The person must be warned he has the right to remain silent.
Any statement he does make may be used as evidence against
him.
He has a right to the presence of an attorney, retained or
approved.
He may waive the effectuations of these rights, provided that a
waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly & intelligently.
Confessions made under physical, mental & moral coercion are
inadmissible. (People vs Buscato)
People vs Ramos, although the accused was appraised of his
constitutional rights, the conviction was reversed as the Court
observed that appellant has only finished Grade VI which means
that he is not adequately educated to understand fully & fairly the
significance of his constitutional rights to silence & to counsel.
People vs Capitin, it was held that If confessions written in
advance by the police for persons of limited intelligence or
educational attainment have been outlawed, the same
disapprobation applies where a confession was signed by a person
whose sanity was dubious, where the intelligence was not only
limited but impaired.
De la Torre vs CA, it reiterated the rule in the Gamboavs Cruz case
that the right to counsel is not available during a police line-up as
that the lawyer be present & be able to advise & assist his client
from the time the confessant answers the first question asked by
the investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial
confession.
Right to counsel is not unlimited. (People vs Serzo)
RA 7309 provides relief for victims of unjust imprisonment,
arbitrary or illegal detention or of violent crimes.
RA 7438 provides sanctions for erring arresting officers.
Bail
Section 13. All persons, except those charged with
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence
of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may
be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired
even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
Section 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal
arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary investigation. An
application for or admission to bail shall not bar the
accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the
legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing
the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary
investigation of the charge against him, provided that he
raises them before entering his plea. The court shall
 resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later
than the start of the trial of the case.
Section 14(a). In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
It is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the
law, furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his
appearance before any court as may be required. (Rule 114, Sec.
17, Rules of Court)
Only persons under detention may petition for bail, for the
purpose of bail is to secure their provisional release.
Section 13 of Article III reversed the Garcia-Padilla vs Enrile
preserving the right to bail even if the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus was suspended.
Any offense which under the law existing at the time of its
commission & at the time of the application for bail may be
punished by reclusion perpetua or death, even if a lesser penalty
may be imposed upon conviction owing to mitigating
circumstances that may be disclosed later.
EXCEPTION:
Revised Rules of Court, Rule 114, Section 4.Bail, a matter
of right; exception. All persons in custody shall be admitted
to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or released
on recognize as prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or after
conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, &
(b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense
not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment.
Hearing on bail is separate & distinct from the initial hearing to
determine the existence of probable cause, & it is required to
satisfy due process which may be summary in nature or held in
the course of the trial itself. A separate hearing is not
indispensable.
1) In all cases whether bail is a matter of right or discretion,
notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail
or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18,
Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court)
2) Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the
application for bail regardless of whether or not the
prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt
of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court
to exercise its sound discretion (Sections 7 & 8)
3) Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on
the summary of evidence of the prosecution
4) If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the
accused upon the approval of the bail bond (Section 9);
otherwise the petition should be denied.
The duties of a judge once an application for bail is filed:
Section 9.Amount of bail; guidelines. The judge who
issued the warrant or granted the application shall fix a
reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not
limited to, the following factors:
(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;
(b) Nature & circumstances of the offense;
(c) Penalty for the offense charged;
(d) Character & reputation of the accused;
(e) Age & health of the accused;
(f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;
(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bail;
(i) The fact that accused was a fugitive from justice
when arrested; (j) Pendency of other cases where the
accused is on bail.
Excessive bail shall not be required.
Responsibility of the prosecution to establish the defendants
guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Conviction depend not on the weakness of his defence but on
the strength of the prosecution
Presumption of Innocence
According to Cooley, the constitutional presumption will not apply
as long as there is some rational connection between the fact
proved & the ultimate fact presumed, & the inference of one fact
from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be purely
arbitrary mandate.
People v Mirantes, the evidence of the prosecution must be strong
enough to pierce the shield of this presumptive innocence & to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
People v Arciaga, the neglect or refusal of the accused shall not in
any manner prejudice or be used against him.
It is to give emphasis where added emphasis is due.
People v Lumague, the case was set aside after finding that they
were denied due process because they had not been given a
chance to testify & to present additional evidence on their behalf
Right to be Heard
The right to counsel begins from the time a person is taken into
custody & placed under investigation for the commission of a
crime.
The right of the accused to counsel in criminal proceedings has
never been considered subject to waiver.
Has to testify OR submit a position paper
Assistance of Counsel:
People v Holgado, there can be no fair hearing unless the
accused be given an opportunity to be heard by counsel. Even
the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the
science of law, particularly in the rules of procedure, &, without
counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty but
because he does not know how to establish his innocence.
o A counsel de officio should still, despite the objection of such
accused, be appointed by the court to represent him.
o The right to be silent & to the assistance of counsel may be
waived during custodial investigation under Article III, Sec.
12(1).
o The right to counsel does not cease after trial, but continue
even where the case is appealed.
o The defendant is entitled to know the nature & cause of the
accusation against him so he can adequately prepare for his
defence.
o The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense must be stated in ordinary & concise language
without repetition, not necessarily in the terms of the statute
defining the offense, but in such form as is sufficient to
enable a person of common understanding to know that
offense is intended to be charged, & enable the court to
pronounce proper judgment.
o The description & not the designation of the offense are
controlling.
Nature & Cause of Accusation
People v Ramirez, a person charged with rape, of which he was
later absolved, could not be convicted of qualified seduction,
which was not included in the information. A charge of the latter
crime should be filed in which all the elements thereof, including
the virginity of the victim, should be alleged.
People v Abino, convicting the appellant of rape by intimidation
under an Information charging with raping his daughter while she
was asleep & unconscious would violate his constitutional right to
be informed of the nature & case of the accusation against him.
Void-for-vagueness rule:
It is where the statue itself is couched in such indefinite
language that it is not possible for men of ordinary intelligence
to determine therefrom what acts or omissions are punished.
Gallego v Sandiganbayan, the use of the words unwarranted,
manifest partiality, evident bad faith, & gross inexcusable
negligence, which all have definite connotations, did not make
the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act invalid for vagueness.
 Estrada v Sandiganbayan, the petitioners contention that the
Plunder Law denied him the right to be informed of the nature &
cause of accusation against him because of its ambiguity in
failing to define with precision certain words & phrases in many
of its provisions was rejected. The test in determining whether a
criminal statute is void for uncertainty is whether the language
conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed
conduct when measured by common understanding & practice.
It merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the
statute to be upheld.
Publicity of the trial is necessary to prevent abuses that may be
committed by the court to the prejudice of the defendant.
It will call for no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial
judge, to insure that justice is done to the defendant. The judge
must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial.
The Trial
One free from vexatious, capricious & oppressive delays
Intended to relive the accused of needless anxieties &
inconveniences before sentence is pronounced upon him
Section 16, all persons shall have the right to a speedy
disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial,
or administrative bodies.
Speedy trial:
Requisites:
1) The accused has already been arraigned
2) He has been duly notified of the trial
3) His failure to appear is unjustifiable
Trial in Absentia
Requisites:
a) The accused has already been arraigned
b) He has been duly notified of the trial
c) His failure to appear is unjustified
Right to Confrontation
To meet the witness face to face...
Scope:
Up to the extent of direct examination because he is protected
from self-incrimination
Intends to secure the accused in the right to be tried, so far as
facts provable by witnesses are concerned, by only such witnesses
as meet him face to face at the trial, who give their testimony in
his presence, & give to the accused an opportunity of cross-
examination
One of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution to
the person facing criminal prosecution who should know his
accusers & given the chance to cross-examine
Chief purpose: to secure the opportunity for cross-examination:
Afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of the
witness by cross-examination;
Allow the judge to observe the deportment of witnesses
Enables the court to observe the demeanour of the witness under
oath & assess his credibility
Testimony of the witness against the accused is subject to cross-
examination by defence counsel
May be done through counsel accused need not have face-to-
face confrontation
If a prosecution witness dies before cross-examination can be
completed, his direct testimony cannot be stricken off record,
PROVIDED the material points of his direct testimony had been
covered on cross
Examination of witnesses must be done orally before a judge in
open court (Go v People)
EXCEPTION
Requiring not necessarily an actual cross-examination but
merely an opportunity to exercise the right to cross-examine if
desired
Compulsory Process
Accused is entitled to issue a subpoena & subpoena duces tecum
for the purpose of compelling the attendance of witnesses & the
production of evidence he may need for defence
Failure is punishable as contempt of court
Defendant may ask for conditional examination PROVIDED the
expected testimony is material:
Witness is so sick & infirm as to afford reasonable ground for
believing that he will not be able to attend the trial
He reside more than 100km from the place of trial & has no
means to attend the same
Other similar circumstances that will prevent him from
attendance
Not applicable in the Court of Tax Appeals not a criminal court
Prohibited Punishment
Section 19(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither
shall the death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it. Any death penalty already disposed shall
be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological
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.
Penalty must be inhumane & barbarous & shocking to the
conscience
Cruelty must be inherent in the penalty
Torture is a cruel punishment involves a deliberate design to
increase the suffering of the prisoner in a manner so flagrant &
oppressive as to revolt the moral sense of the community
An unforeseeable accident adds to the suffering of the convict, a
penalty otherwise does not become cruel or unusual
Violative of the due process clause: requires an equivalence
between the degree of the offense & the degree of the penalty
Prohibition is not only addressed to the legislature but also to the
judge who, in determining the fine to be imposed, must take into
account the financial condition of the convict, prevent excessive &
discriminatory fines
Double Jeopardy
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by
a law & an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either
shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same
act.
Available to the accused where the dismissal of the prosecution
against him, even with his express consent, was based on
insufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution or denial of his
right to a speedy trial, because these dismissals are considered in
the nature of an acquittal
Requisites:
a) A valid complaint or information
It must be a valid complaint otherwise it can place the
accused in jeopardy.
Where the original information is defective & the case is
dismissed on the motion of the accused, it may validly renew
with the filing of a corrected information. But if without the
express consent of the accused, the information is dismissed
on the ground that it is defective when it is not so in fact,
another prosecution based on the same allegation will
constitute double jeopardy.
In Herrera v. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court considered
the petitioners as not having been placed in danger of
convicted when they entered their plea of not guilty to the
information which did not allege that they committed the
or offense specified therein in relation to their office. The
Court considered said complaint or information as
insufficient as it could not have provided for their
conviction.
b) Filed before a competent court (Competent Court)
 A court without jurisdiction cannot render a valid judgment;
hence, a person charged before it cannot plead double
jeopardy when tried anew for the same offense by a
competent court, as the first prosecution never placed him in
jeopardy.
c) To which the defendant had pleaded (Valid Plea)
A defendant is never placed under jeopardy until after he
shall have pleaded to the charge against him during the
arraignment.
An order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory &
therefore, not appealable, nor can it be subject of a petition
for certiorari.
d) Of which he had previously acquitted/convicted (Termination of
Case)
The acquittal is executory upon rendition & entitles the
accused to immediate release. The judgment if conviction is
appealable within fifteen days but becomes final if the
convict starts serving his sentence even before the expiration
of this period.
General Rule:
o A dismissal with the express consent of the accused will
not bar another prosecution for the same offense, as the
said consent is considered a WAIVER of his right against
double jeopardy. The consent, to be effective, must be
express, & this excludes mere silence or failure of the
accused to object to the dismissal. (People v. Ylagan GR
No. L-38443, Nov 25 1933)
o EXCEPTIONS:
a) When there is insufficiency of evidence to support the
charge against him
b) Where there has been an unreasonable delay in the
proceedings, in violation of the accuseds right to speedy
trial. (People v. Verra GR No. 134732 May 29, 2002)
o Juris:
Defence of double jeopardy will be available to the accused
where the dismissal of the prosecution against him, even
with his express consent, was based on insufficiency of
evidence of the prosecution or denial of his right to speedy
trial, because these dismissals are considered in the nature
of an acquittal. (People v. Robles GR No. L-12761 June 29,
1959)
Distinction:
o Acquittal
Discharge after a trial, or an attempt to have one, upon
the merits. The accused is acquitted because the
evidence doesnt show his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
o Dismissal
When the case is terminated otherwise upon the merits
thereof, as when the dismissal is based on the allegation
that the court has no jurisdiction, either upon the subject
matter or the territory, or that the complaint or
information is not valid or sufficient, or upon any ground
that doesnt decide the merits of the issue as to whether
the accused is or isnt guilty of the offense charged.
General Rule:
- An order of dismissal of the first case will not bar
another prosecution for the same offense, an attempt
or frustration thereof, or one which necessarily
includes or is included in the previous offense. (AFTER
arraignment & plea of the defendant to a valid
information)
- EXCEPTIONS:
1) The dismissal is made upon motion or with express
consent of the defendant; defendant is stopped
2) Dismissal is NOT an acquittal or based upon
consideration of the evidence or of the merits of the
case;
3) Question to be passed upon the appellate court is
purely legal (if dismissal is incorrect, case will be
remanded to the court of origin for further
proceedings.
Appeal of Prosecution
o A judgment of acquittal is final and no longer reviewable
will put the accused in double jeopardy
EXCEPT on exceptional & narrow grounds:
- When the court that absolved the accused gravely
abused its discretion resulting in loss of jurisdiction
- When a mistrial has occurred
o Prosecution can appeal where the accused is deemed to
have waived or is stopped from invoking his right against
DJ
o Grant of a motion to quash, files before defendant makes
Act Violating Law & Ordinance
his plea, can be appealed as he has not yet been placed in
jeopardy
o In criminal cases:
Acquittal or dismissal can only be appealed by the
SolGen acting on behalf of the State
Private complainant may question such only insofar as
the civil liability of the accused is considered
o The government cannot appeal from an acquittal or for the
purpose of increasing or modifying a penalty even if the
decision be not in accordance with the law
Crimes Covered
o If the 4 elements of DJ are present, accused may not be
prosecuted again for the original offense, for any attempt
or frustration thereof, any offense necessarily includes or
included in the offense charged in the original complaint or
information
o Doctrine of Supervening event
Accused may be prosecuted for another offense if a
subsequent development changes the character of the
first indictment he may have been charged
The conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to
another prosecution for an offense which necessarily
includes the offense charged in the former complaint or
information under any of the following instances:
a) The graver offense developed due to supervening
facts arising from the same act or omission
constituting the former charge;
b) The facts constituting the graver charge became
known or were discovered only after a plea was
entered in the former complaint or information;
c) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was
made without the consent of the prosecutor & of
the offended party except as provided in section
1(f) of Rule 116.
o Inseparable offenses
Where an offense is inseparable from another &
proceeds from the same act, they cannot be the subject
of separate prosecutions
Illegal sale of dangerous drugs necessarily includes the
crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
However, it is possible for one act to give rise to several
crimes separate prosecutions for each crime may be
filed, provided the elements of the several crimes are
not identical
The Constitution states:
If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under wither shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same act