DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Art. III, Sec. 21
- Requisites for Protection Against Double
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in
Jeopardy:
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
(a) a valid complaint or information;
If an act is punished by a law and an
(b) a competent court;
ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either
(c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge;
shall constitute a bar to another prosecution
and
for the same act.
(d) the defendant was acquitted, or convicted,
or the case against him was dismissed or
Rule 117, Sec. 7
otherwise terminated without his express
Sec. 7. Former conviction or acquittal;
consent
double jeopardy. When an accused has been
convicted or acquitted, or the case against him
Subsequent prosecution barred;
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
Exceptions
express consent by a court of competent
1. Melo vs. People, 85 Phil. 766
jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or
(1959)
information or other formal charge sufficient in
- Filing of subsequent amended information is
form and substance to sustain a conviction
valid when offense in first information not
and after the accused had pleaded to the
existent at the time of second information;
charge, the conviction or acquittal of the
greater offense charged is valid
accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a
2. People vs. Yorac, 42 SCRA 230 (1971)
bar to another prosecution for the offense
(overruled)
charge, or for any attempt to commit the same
3. PSB v. Bermoy, G.R. No. 151912,
or frustration thereof, or for any offense which
September 26, 2005
necessarily includes or is necessarily included
4. Heirs of Rillorta vs. Firme, 157 SCRA 518
in the offense charged in the former complaint
(1988)
or information.
5. People vs. Miraflores, 115 SCRA 586 (1982)
However, the conviction of the accused
6. People vs. Judge Vergara, 221 SCRA
shall not be a bar to another prosecution for
560 (1993)
an offense which necessarily includes the
offense charged in the former complaint or
7. Tupaz v. Ulep, G.R. No. 127777, October 1,
information under any of the following
1999
instances:
8. Argel v. Judge Pascua, A.M. No. RTJ-94(a) the graver offense developed due to
1131, August 20, 2001
supervening facts arising from the same act or
omission constituting the former charge;
Jurisdiction of Courts
(b) the facts constituting the graver charge
People v. Bocar , 138 SCRA 166 (1985)
became known or were discovered only after
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan, 144 SCRA 43
the filing of the former complaint or
(1986)
information; or
People vs. Grospe, 157 SCRA 154 (1988)
(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense
People vs. Judge Santiago, 174 SCRA 143
was made without the consent of the fiscal
(1989)
and of the offended party.
In any of the foregoing cases, where the
Identity of Acts
accused satisfies or serves in whole or in part
People vs . Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)
the judgment, he shall be credited with the
same in the event of conviction for the graver
Identity of Offenses
offense.
People vs. City Court, 154 SCRA 175 (1987)
Nierras vs. acuycuy, 181 SCRA 1 (1990)
Rule 120, Sec. 5
Sec. 5. When an offense includes or is
Military Court Proceedings
included in another.
Cruz vs. Enrile, 160 SCRA 702 (1988)
An offense charged necessarily includes
Tan v. Barrios, October 18, 1990
that which is proved, when some of the
essential elements or ingredients of the
Right to Speedy Trial
former, as this is alleged in the complaint or
Que vs. Cosico, 177 SCRA 410 (1989)
information, constitute the latter. And an
Caes vs. IAC, 179 SCRA 54 (1989)
offense charged is necessarily included in the
offense proved, when the essential ingredients
Administrative & Criminal Proceedings
of the former constitute or form a part of those
Icasiano vs. Sandiganbayan, 209 SCRA 377
constituting the latter.
(1992)
Vincoy v CA, G.R. No. 156558, June 14, 2004
Elements
People v. Larannaga, G.R. No. 138874, July 25,
People vs. Obsania, 23 SCRA 1249 (1968)
2005
Plea of Guilt to Lesser Offense
People vs. Judge Villarama, 210 SCRA 246
(1992)
