Scribd
Upload
199 views1 page

Tangan Vs People

This case discusses the doctrine of double jeopardy. The petitioner was initially charged with murder using an unlicensed firearm, but the charge was later amended to homicide using a licensed firearm. Subsequently, the petitioner was charged with illegal possession of the firearms used in the homicide. The petitioner claimed double jeopardy. The court ruled that double jeopardy did not apply because jeopardy had not yet attached to the first case, as there had been no conviction or acquittal. For double jeopardy to apply, there must be 1) a first valid jeopardy, 2) a valid termination of the first jeopardy, and 3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense. As jeopardy had not yet attached in

Uploaded by

Aphr
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
199 views1 page

Tangan Vs People

This case discusses the doctrine of double jeopardy. The petitioner was initially charged with murder using an unlicensed firearm, but the charge was later amended to homicide using a licensed firearm. Subsequently, the petitioner was charged with illegal possession of the firearms used in the homicide. The petitioner claimed double jeopardy. The court ruled that double jeopardy did not apply because jeopardy had not yet attached to the first case, as there had been no conviction or acquittal. For double jeopardy to apply, there must be 1) a first valid jeopardy, 2) a valid termination of the first jeopardy, and 3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense. As jeopardy had not yet attached in

Uploaded by

Aphr
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

USA College of Law

Case Name 16. Tangan vs People


Topic Double Jeopardy
Case No. | Date G.R. No. 73963 November 5, 1987
Ponente PARAS, J.
To raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy
Doctrine must have been attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly
terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first
RELEVANT FACTS
 Petitioner has been charged on July 1, 1985 before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 136 in an
information that described the commission of the crime of murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm
and docketed as Criminal Case No. 17587
 Before the scheduled date of arraignment on August 8, 1985, however, a new investigation of the case was
made upon request of petitioner filed with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Pasig, Rizal (Rollo, p. 94).
Subsequently, the offense charged was changed to homicide with the use of a licensed firearm, with the
information amended on August 16, 1985.
 On September 4, 1985 petitioner entered a plea of "not guilty" to the amended charge of homicide.
 On September 18, 1985 a resolution was issued by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal finding probable
cause to hold petitioner for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions used in the commission of
homicide as defined and punished under Section I of Presidential Decree 1866 and on the same date,
information was filed in the same court indicting petitioner for the offense docketed as Criminal Case No.
19350.
 On October 30, 1985 petitioner filed a motion to quash the information in Criminal Case No. 19350. (1) the
information charges more than one offense which are separately punishable under existing laws; (2) the
criminal action or liability of the accused has been extinguished; and (3) the accused is in jeopardy of being
convicted, or acquitted, of the offense charged
 The motion to quash was denied. On January 24, 1986 petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the
resolution of January 9, 1986 built the same was again denied by respondent judge in an order dated March
5, 1986.
 Hence, this petition filed with this Court on March 26, 1986

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is in jeopardy of being tried, convicted and/or punished twice for the same
offense.
RULING: NO. There is no double jeopardy in the filing of the information for homicide in Criminal Case No. 17587
and in the filing of the information for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition used in the commission of
homicide in Criminal Case No. 19350 for the simple reason that the first jeopardy had not yet attached. It is well-
settled that the mere filing of two informations or complaints charging the same offense does not yet afford the
accused in those cases the occasion to complain that he is being placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense,
for the simple reason that the primary basis of the defense of double jeopardy is that the accused has already
been convicted or acquitted in the first case or that the same has been terminated without his express consent.
It is the conviction or jeopardy of being convicted or the acquittal of the accused or termination of the case that
bars further prosecution of the same offense or any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for
any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint
or information.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, (a) the petition is hereby dismissed, for lack of merit; (b) the restraining order
issued by the Court on April 23, 1986 is permanently lifted; and (c) Criminal Cases Nos. 17850 and 19350
are consolidated and a joint hearing thereon is ordered conducted

You might also like