NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT OR NON-PAYMENT OF POLL TAX

Section 20 Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of
poll tax
DEBT
The term DEBT as used in the provision refers to any obligation
arising from contracts, expressed or implied.
A long as the obligation to pay arises ex contractu, it is considered a
private matter between the creditor and the debtor and the punitive arm
of the State cannot be employed in a criminal action to enforce the
formers right. The remedy in this case is a civil action only for the
recovery of the unpaid debt.
But although the debtor cannot be imprisoned for his failure to pay
his debt, he can be validly punished in a criminal action if he contracted
his debt through fraud. In such case, the act for which he is penalized is
the deception he employed in securing the debt, not his default in paying
it. The responsibility of the debtor in this situation arises not from the
contract of loan, but ex delicto or from the commission of a crime.
As his obligation does not arise ex contractu, it is not considered a
debt under this provision.
Serafin v. Lindayag, 67 SCRA 166
In this case, a criminal complaint was filed with respondent judge
charging that the above-named accused with intent of gain did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously owe the sum of One Thousand
Five Hundred Pesos (1,500.00) Philippine currency; that said amount has
long been due since January 28, 1971 and that the accused failed to pay
her account in spite of due notice sent by registered mail and up to the
present she failed to settle her obligation. Although on the face of this
complaint no criminal offense had been committed, the judge
nevertheless, after a rather hasty preliminary examination, issued a
warrant for the arrest of the defendant.
The Supreme Court annulled his act, declaring it to be violative of
the prohibition against imprisonment against imprisonment for debt.
POLL TAX
It is defined as a specific fixed sum levied upon every person
belonging to a certain class without regard to his property or occupation.
This exception adopted pursuant to the social justice policy, reflects
the tender regard of the law for the millions of our impoverish masses who
cannot afford even the nominal cost of poll tax like the basic community
tax certificate.

Since tax is not a debt but arises from the obligation of the person
to contribute his share in the maintenance of the government, failure to
pay the same can be validly punished with imprisonment.

DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Section 21 Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the
same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction
or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for
the same act
REQUISITES:
1. Valid complaint or information.
2. Filed before a competent court.
3. To which the defendant had pleaded.
4. Defendant was previously acquitted or convicted, or the case
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Valid complaint or information
A prosecution based on an invalid complaint or information cannot
lead to a valid judgment and hence will not place the accused under
jeopardy.
Thus, an information filed by the prosecutor for concubinage is null
and void and can be dismissed, and the same charge embodied in a
complaint filed by the offended spouse can be later instituted without
placing the accused in double jeopardy. (US v Yam Tung Way, 21 Phil 67).
Filed before a competent court
The SC held that the military tribunals had no jurisdiction to try
cases of civilians, which fell under the competence of the ordinary civil
courts even during the period of martial laws. The judgment of the military
tribunals in this case were therefore invalidated, hence there was no
double jeopardy. (Olaguer v Military Commision, 150 SCRA 144).
To which the defendant had pleaded
A defendant is never placed under jeopardy until after he shall have
pleaded to the charge against him during the arraignment. Thus, where a
defective complaint was dismissed before the accused had pleaded and
an amended complaint was later filed, his plea of double jeopardy was
rejected because he had not been exposed to danger under the first
indictment. (Santos v People Gr. No. 173176 August 26, 2006)
Termination of Case

a. By Acquittal
b. By Final Conviction
c By dismissal on the merits or without the express consent of the
accused.
General Rule: 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 and this excludes mere silence
or failure of the accused to object the dismissal. (People v Ylagan)
Exception: Dismissal, even if with the express consent of the
accused will give rise to double jeopardy if the same is:
i.
prosecution.
ii.
iii.
speedy trial.

Based

on

insufficiency

of

the

evidence

of

the

Made on the basis of a demurrer to evidence.

If there is violation of the right of the accused to a

EXCEPTIONS TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY

1.
The graver offense developed due to supervening facts
arising from the same act or omission constituting the former charge.
2.
The facts constituting the graver became known or were
discovered only after the filing of the former complaint of information.
3.
The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the
consent of the fiscal and offended party.

ACT VIOLATING LAW AND ORDINANCE

The constitution says that If an act is punished by a law and an
ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution for the same act.
A person was charged under a city ordinance with having installed a
device in his ice plant that lowered his electric meter readings to the
prejudice of the city government. The information was however, dismissed
on the ground of prescription, having been filed more than two (2) months
after discovery of the offense. Later the same defendant was charged
anew, this time before the court of first instance, for theft of electric
current under the Revised Penal Code. On motion of the accused, the
respondent judge dismissed the case because of double jeopardy, and the

prosecution appealed. The Supreme Court sustained the dismissal on the

ground of double jeopardy. (People v Relova, 148 SCRA 292)

FINALITY OF ACQUITTAL RULE

The accused cannot be prosecuted a second time for the same
offense and the prosecution cannot appeal for a judgment of acquittal.
A judgment of acquittal is final and is no longer reviewable. (People
v Terrado, Gr no. 148226, July 14, 2008.

Kindly take note of this Latest Case (a 2015 case) with regards to
exception on the Finality Acquittal Rule.
People of the Philippines vs. CA 21st Division, Raymund
Carampatana, Joefel Oporto and Moises Alquizola
Gr No. 183652, February 25, 2015
General Rule:
The prosecution cannot appeal or bring error proceeding from a
judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in a criminal case.
Reason: Judgment of acquittal is immediately FINAL and
EXECUTORY. The prosecution is barred from appealing lest the
constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy be violated.
Exception:
Either the offended party or the accused may appeal, but only with
respect to the civil aspect of the decision.
Or said judgment of acquittal may be assailed through a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court showing that the
lower court, in acquitting the accused, committed nor merely reversible
errors of judgment, but also exercised grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or a denial of due process,
thereby rendering the assailed judgment null and void.
If there is grave abuse of discretion, granting petitioners prayer is
not tantamount to putting private respondents in double jeopardy.

EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER

Section 22 Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted

EX POST FACTO LAW

The prohibition applies only to criminal legislation which affects the
substantial rights of the accused.
Kinds:
1. Every law that makes criminal an action done before the passage of
the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such
action;
2. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was
when committed;
3. Every law that changes punishment, and inflicts a greater
punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed;
4. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or
different testimony than the law required at the time of the
commission of the offense in order to convict the offender;
5. Every law which, assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies
only, in effect imposes a penalty or the deprivation of a right for
something which when done was lawful;
6.
Every law which deprives persons accused of a crime of some lawful
protection to which they have become entitled, such as the protection of a
former conviction or acquittal, or of a proclamation of amnesty.

Characteristics:
1. It refers to criminal matters
2. It is retroactive in application
3. It works to the prejudice of the accused

BILL OF ATTAINDER

It is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial

It is only when a statute applies either to named individuals or to

easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict
punishment on them without judicial trial that it becomes a bill of
attainder