Citation |

Case Subject Matter

Date | Facts Issue/s Resolution Remarks
Title & Keywords
Ponente
NO. Co and Lim expressly gave their consent when the case
Liezl Co charged Lim and Go for stealing her cell cards. She charged
G.R. Nos. was first dismissed. For double jeopardy to set in, (1) there
them for violation of P.D. 1612 or the Anti-Fencing Law. However,
164669-70 | must be a valid complaint of information; (2) the complaint
Liezl Co the charges were eventually dropped pursuant to a resolution by the WON there was
October 30, should be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction; (3)
v. Right Against Acting Secretary of the DOJ. When this case was motioned to be double jeopardy
1 2009 | the accused has pleaded to the charge; and (4) the accused has
Harold Double Jeopardy dismissed, Lim and Go and their counsels expressly gave their in the present
CHICO- been convicted or acquitted, or the case has been dismissed or
Lim consent. However, Liezl Co assailed the resolution and petitioned for case
NAZARIO, terminated without the express consent of the accused. Since
its reversal. When this was brought up, the right against double
J. the accused expressly consented, then the requisites were not
jeopardy was used as a defense by Lim and Go.
met.  
G.R. Nos. Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia and his family were charged with cases for
NO. Proceedings under RA 1379 (case 1) are civil in nature.
170122 & unlawful acquisition of funds and properties. These are (1) Civil
Garcia Right Against WON the filing As a necessary corollary, one who is sued under RA 1379
171381 | Case No. 0193 worth P143M, (2) Civil Case No. 0196 worth P202M,
v. Double Jeopardy; of the separate may be proceeded against for a criminal offense. Thus, the
2 October 12, and (3) Criminal Case of plunder worth P303M. Upon receiving the
Sandiga Admin and cases constitutes filing of a case under that law is not barred by the conviction
2009 | summons for the cases, Garcia moved for the consolidation of case 1
nbayan Criminal Case double jeopardy or acquittal of the defendant in Crim. Case 28107 (case 3) for
VELASCO, and 3 on the ground that, among others, it is imperative so as to avoid
plunder.
J. double jeopardy.  
NO. There is no double jeopardy because the Supreme Court
G.R. No. Romana Mabago filed cases against MTC Judge Aurelio Icasiano,
Icasiano Right Against WON the filing case was administrative in character while the Sandiganbayan
95642| May Jr., (1) an administrative complaint before the Supreme Court, and
Jr. v. Double Jeopardy; of the separate case is criminal in nature. The Court is of the view that the
3 28, 1992 | (2) a criminal case of violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Sandiga Admin and cases constitutes distinction between administrative and criminal proceedings
PADILLA, Act before the Ombudsman. Icasiano, Jr. contends the complaints
nbayan Criminal Case double jeopardy must be upheld, and that a prosecution in one is not a bar to
J. invoking the right against double jeopardy.
the other.  
NO. There were no elements of double jeopardy present in the
When Editha Ramolete was 3 months pregnant, she sought the advise
proceedings before the Board of Medicine. The proceedings
G.R. No. of Dr. Cayao-Lasam. She was brought to Lorma Medican Center in
involved were administrative and not criminal in nature. The
Cayao- 159132| La Union where a series of complications took place leading to the
Right Against Court has already held that double jeopardy does not lie in
Lasam December death of her fetus. Consequently, Sps. Ramolete submitted an WON this is a
Double Jeopardy; administrative cases. Double jeopardy attaches only: (1) upon
4 v. Sps. 18, 2002 | administrative complaint before the PRC for the revokation of double jeopardy
Administrative a valid indictment; (2) before a competent court; (3) after
Ramolet AUSTRIA- Cayao-Lasam's medical license. This was granted. Cayao-Lasam case
Cases arraignment; (4) when a valid plea has been entered; and (5)
e MARTINEZ sought to appeal before the CA but was not admitted due to Sec. 26
when the defendant was acquitted or convicted, or the case
, J. of the Medical Act, which forbids the accused to appeal. Cayao-
was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express
Lasam contends the prohibition as double jeopardy.
consent of the accused.  

Braza, the president of FABMIK Construction, was charged (w/ NO. The principle of double jeopardy cannot apply because
GR No. DPWH) by the Ombudsman for violating Sec. 3(g) of R.A. 3019 for the first information (Sec. 3 violation) is different and not
Isabelo 195032 l overpricing street lighting projects for the 12th ASEAN Leaders WON Braza's included in the charge under the second information.
Braza v. February 20, Right Against Summit. Braza was arraigned albeit conditionally so he may travel right against Moreover, the nature of the charges are different since the first
5  
Sandiga 2013 | Double Jeopardy abroad. Meanwhile, the Ombudsman, based on its reinvestigation, double jeopardy has a condition, which is to be allowed to travel abroad but
nbayan MENDOZA, submitted its resolution, modifying the charge to the violation of Sec. was violated that should the charge be amended, he waives his right against
J. 15 of RA 3019 instead. Braza contends that this modification is a double jeopardy (Sandiganbayan's June 6 order). These
violation against his right against double jeopardy. conditions were duly explained and agreed with.

WON the NO. It is a fundamental principle of administrative law that

criminal case administrative cases are independent from criminal actions for
A criminal and an administrative complaint was filed against
against the the same act or omission. Thus, an absolution from a criminal
petitioner Brigido Paredes for forging private respondent Bernardino
G.R. No. petitioner should charge is not a bar to an administrative prosecution, or vice
Right Against Teloren's signatures and for falsification of checks. Office of the
Paredes 169534 | July be dismissed versa. One thing is administrative liability; quite another thing
Double Jeopardy; Ombudsman found probable cause to hold petitioner criminally liable
vs. 30, 2007 | since his liability is the criminal liability for the same act. It is well settled that
6 Criminal and for seven counts of Estafa and likewise found him guilty of grave  
Court of CHICO- in the a single act may offend against two or more distinct and
Administrative misconduct. CA absolved petitioner of administrative culpability.
Appeals NAZARIO, administrative related provisions of law, or that the same act may give rise to
Liability Petitioner then filed with the RTC a Motion to Dismiss the criminal
J. case for the same criminal as well as administrative liability. As such, they may
case on the ground that the CA dismissed the administrative case
act was not be prosecuted simultaneously or one after another, so long as
filed against him. RTC and CA denied his Motion to Dismiss.
established by they do not place the accused in double jeopardy of being
substantial punished for the same offense.
 evidence
Various complaints were filed by petitioners against respondents, and NO. The result of a preliminary investigation can neither
vice versa. Some complaints were dropped. Four (4) criminal charges constitute nor give rise to the defense of double jeopardy in
were then filed by respondents against petitioners with the City Court any case, because such preliminary investigation is not and
G.R. Nos. Right Against WON the
of San Carlos City. Said Court issued orders after finding reasonable does not in itself constitute a trial or even any part thereof. In
Tandoc 59241-44 | Double Jeopardy; defense of
ground to believe that the offenses charged may have been order that the defense of jeopardy may lie, there must be a
7 vs. July 5. 1989 | Criminal Case; double jeopardy  
committed by the accused (now petitioners) and that the latter were former judgment, either of acquittal or of conviction, rendered
Resultan PADILLA, Preliminary by the petitioners
probably guilty. Warrants of arrest were issued against petitioners. by a court competent to render the same, not only by reason of
J. Investigation is tenable
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and moved for a re- the offense committed, which must be the same or at least
investigation of the cases but was denied in both. Hence, this comprised within it, but also by reason of the place where it
petition. was committed.
Lizah Cimafranca and Rolando Flores engaged the services of NO. The dismissal of the first complaint against Vincoy
petitioner George Vincoy. Petitioner failed to comply with the cannot bar his further prosecution. It is settled that the
WON the
deliverables and so Cimafranca and Flores demanded the return of dismissal of a case during its preliminary investigation does
G.R. No. dismissal of the
Vincoy Right Against their money. Petitioner reiumbursed the two through a check which not constitute double jeopardy since a preliminary
156558 | first complaint
vs. Double Jeopardy; was later dishonored. Cimafranca filed a complaint for Estafa against investigation is not part of the trial and is not the occasion for
8 June 14, against Vincoy  
Court of Previous petitioner which was dismissed. Flores then joined Cimafranca and the full and exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence but
2004 | can bar his
Appeals Dismissal; Estafa re-filed the complaint charging the same offense against petitioner. only such as may engender a well-grounded belief that an
PUNO, J. further
RTC convicted petitioner. CA upheld the conviction. Petitioner now offense has been committed and accused is probably guilty
prosecution
appeals to the SC and alleges that the dismissal of the previous thereof. For this reason, it cannot be considered equivalent to
complaint filed by Cimafranca supports his acquittal. a judicial pronouncement of acquittal.

Petitioner Wilfredo Trinidad was charged for violating The Anti-

WON there is NO. Res judicata is a doctrine of civil law and thus has no
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) for pre-qualifying
G.R. No. double jeopardy bearing on criminal proceedings. But even if petitioner’s
Trinidad Paircargo Consortium for the NAIA Project of the Department of
166038 | since the Office argument were to be expanded to contemplate “res judicata in
vs. Transportation and Communication despite its failure to meet the
December 4, Right Against of the prison grey” or the criminal law concept of double jeopardy,
Office financial capability standards set by law. The law mandates that the
9 2007 | Double Jeopardy; Ombudsman the Supreme Court still finds it inapplicable to bar the  
of the project proponent must have the financial capability to sustain the
CARPIO- Res Judicata twice found no reinvestigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ombuds project which is 30% of the project cost. The total net worth of
MORALES, sufficient basis to For the dismissal of a case during preliminary investigation
man Paircargo Consortium is only 6.08% of the project cost. Petitioner
J. indict petitioner does not constitute double jeopardy, preliminary investigation
argues that Res Judicata applies since the Office of the Ombudsman
in similar cases not being part of the trial.
twice found no sufficient basis to indict him in similar cases.

NO. In order to successfully invoke the defense of double

jeopardy, one of the requisites is that a first jeopardy must
In order to successfully invoke the defense of double
have attached prior to the second. In determining when the
jeopardy, the following requisites must be present:
first jeopardy may be said to have attached, it is necessary to
(1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the
prove the existence of, among others, a court of competent
City Prosecutor of Angeles City filed an information against second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly
jurisdiction and a valid complaint or information. As to the
petitioner Renato Cudia for illegal possession of firearms and terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for
first requisite, the Angeles City RTC had no jurisdiction over
ammunition. Later on, it was found out that petitioner had committed the same offense or the second offense includes or is
the case for the reason that the offenses were committed in
G.R. No. the offense in the Municipality of Mabalacat, Pampanga and not in necessarily included in the offense charged in the
Mabalacat and not in Angeles City. With respect to the second
Cudia 110315 | Angeles City, Pampanga. The case was re-raffled and assigned to WON Cudia’s first information, or is an attempt to commit the
Right Against requisite, it is apparent that the City Prosecutor of Angeles
1 vs. January 16, Angeles City RTC. Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga also filed an right against same or a frustration thereof.
Double Jeopardy; City had no authority to file the first information for the
0 Court of 1998 | information charging petitioner with the same crime. City Prosecutor double jeopardy
Requisites offense committed is beyond his jurisdiction. It is the
Appeals ROMERO, of Angeles City then withdrew from the case. Petitioner filed a was violated In determining when the first jeopardy may be said
Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga who should prepare
J. Motion to Quash the second criminal case (filed by the Provincial to have attached, it is necessary to prove the
informations for offenses committed within Pampanga but
Prosecutor) on the ground that it violates his right not to be put twice existence of the following: (a) Court of competent
outside of Angeles City. Therefore, the first complaint or
in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. RTC and CA denied jurisdiction; (b) Valid complaint or information; (c)
information was insufficient. There is no breach of the
the motion. Arraignment; (d) Valid plea; (e) The defendant was
constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy for the
acquitted or convicted or the case was dismissed or
same offense for the simple reason that the absence of
otherwise terminated without the express consent of
authority of the City Prosecutor to file the first information
the accused.
meant that petitioner could never have been convicted on the
strength thereof.
 2 separate Informations were filed charging Raul Zapatos, a public
officer, employee of the DENR, with murder and frustrated murder
of Municipal Mayor of Bayugan, Agusa del Sur Leonardo Cortez,
G.R. No. and Socrates Platero. Upon arraignment in the RTC Branch 5,
147814-15 | petitioner pleaded not guilty to both charges. The public prosecutor No. While petitioner had already pleaded not guilty before the
Zapatos Right Against WON double
1 September filed with the RTC an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss ont he ground of RTC, jeopardy did not attach as it did not acquire jurisdiction.
v. Double Jeopardy; jeopardy has  
1 16, 2003 | lack of jurisdiction, which was granted by the RTC and dismissing There can be no double jeopardy where the accused entered a
People jurisdiction attached
Sandoval- the criminal cases.This prompted Special Prosecution Officer Dela plea in court that had no jurisdiction.
Gutierrez, J. Llana to file with the Sandiganbayan the two Informations. Petitioner
questioned the act saying that the Sandiganbayan gravely ered in not
finding that double jeopardy has already attached and that it had no
jurisdiction over the cases.

There are 2 consolidated petitions: the Binay Petition and the
Magsaysay Petition. The Binay Petition is 3 separate informations
filed before the Sandiganbayan against Peititioner Jejomar Binay for
Illegal Use of Public funds and violationg of the Anti-Graft and
G.R. Nos
Corrupt Practices Act committed during his incumbency as Mayor of
Binay v. 120681-83 | Right Against
1 Makati. Several issued were raised by Binay but the Court ruled that
Sandiga October 1, Double Jeopardy;
2 the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the cases. In the Magsaysay
nbayan 1999 | jurisdiction
Petition, Mayor Magsaysay of San Pascual, Batangas, et. al., was
Kapunan, J.
filed a complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act before the Batangas RTC. A group called the
Concerned Citizens of San Pascual, Batangas filed another
information with the same facts with the Sandiganbayan.
NO. The filing of the information in the Sandiganbayan did
not put petitioners in double jeopardy even though they had
WON the trial to
already pleaded “not guilty” to the information earlier filed in
be conducted by
the RTC. The first jeopardy never attached in the first place,
the
the RTC not being a court of competent jurisdiction. There
Sandiganbayan
can be no double jeopardy where the accused entered a plea in
will expose the  
a court that had no jurisdiction. The remedy of petitioners,
accused
therefore, was not to move for the quashal of the information
Magsaysay, et
pending in the Sandiganbayan on the ground of double
atl. to double
jeopardy. Their remedy was to move for the quashal of the
jeopardy.
information pending in the RTC on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction.

Police officers, one of which was Maderal who remained at large

during the trial, were accused of murder. RTC convicted the
personnel, but the SC on automatic review, reversed the decision and
acquitted the police officers based on Reasonable doubts. On Sept
G.R. No. 1999, Maderal was arrested, executed a sworn confession, and
WON double No. In any case, teh reinstatement of a criminal case
158763 | Rights against identified Miranda et al as responsible for the murder. Tuliao, father
Miranda jeopardy would dismissed before arraignment does not constitute double
1 March 31, double jeopardy; of th victim filed a criminal complaint. Judge Tumaliuan issued
v. attach with the jeopardy. Double jeopardy cannot be invoked where the  
3 2006 | reinstatement of warrants of arrest against petitioners. Judge Anghad took over the
Tuliao reinstatement of accused has not been arraigned and it was upon his express
Chico- criminal case case and ordered the cancellation of the warrant of arrest. Miranda el
the cases motion that the case was dismissed.
Nazario, J. at filed a petition praying that a TRO be issued to enjoin Judge
Anghad from proceeding with the case. Judge Anghad dismissed the
informations. Months after, Tuliao filed a petition for certiorari,
mandamus and prohibition. CA ordered teh reinstatement of the
criminal cases.
The trial court convicting the accused-appellant on
Magat was charged with raping his daughter on 2 occassions. During his own plea of guilt is void ab initio on the ground
G.R. No. arraignment, he pleaded guilty but asked for a lower penalty. The No. The judgment rendered by the trial court which was based that the plea is not the plea bargaining contemplated
130026 | Right against prosecutor did not object, so the judge imposed a penalty of 10 years on a void plea bargaining is also void ab initio and cannot be and allowed by law and the rules of procedure. The
WON double
1 People May 31, double jeopardy; for each rape case. 3 months after the trial, the victim sought a re- considered to have attained finality for the simple reason that proper one is the plea of guilty to a lesser offense.
jeopardy attached
4 v. Magat 2000 | trial void ab trial on the basis that the penalty imposed was too low. The court a void judgment has no legality from its inception. Thus, since What Magat did was a conditional plea, saying that
with the retrial.
Panganiban, initio granted the request and the accused was re-arraigned. After the trial, the judgment of conviction rendered against accused-appellant he will plea guilty provided that the penalty be
J. he was sentenced to death penalty. The accuse contended that his is void, doube jeopardy will not lie. lessed. This is erroneous because the accused cannot
retrial was void because he was already previously convicted. set conditions to the penalty imposed on the crime
he is pleading guilty to.
 Balisacan was charged with homicide in the Court of First Instance
No. Although it is settled that the existence of a plea is an
of Ilocos Norte. Balisacan entered a plea of guilty, assisted by
G.R. No. L- essential requisite to double jeopardy, the accused had
counsel. At his de oficio counsel's petition, however, he was allowed
People 26376 | WON the appeal subsequently testified, in the course of being allowed to prove
to persent evidence to prove mitigating circumstances. He said he
1 v. August 31, Right against placed the mitigating circumstances, that he acted in complete self-
stabbed the decease in self-defense and surrendered himself  
5 Balisaca 1966 | double jeopardy accused in defense. Said testomony therefore, had the effect of vacating
voluntarily to the police. On the absis of the testimony, the court
n Bengzon, double jeopardy. his plea of guilty and the court a quo should have required
acquitted him. The appeal was taken to the CA, finding that the trial
J.P., J. him to plead anew on the charge, or at least direct that a new
court erred in acquitting the accused of the offense charged despite
plea of not guilty be entered for him.
the latter's plea of guilty when arraigned.

Tangan was charged with homicide with the use of a licensed firearm WON Tangan is
Right Against NO. There is no double jeopardy in the filing of the
G.R. No. in Criminal Case No. 17587. Probable cause was also found holding in jeopardy of
Double Jeopardy; information for homicide in Criminal Case No. 17587 and in
Tangan 73963 him liable for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions used in being tried,
1 Homicide; Illegal the filing of the information for illegal possession of firearms
v. │November the commission of homicide as defined and punished under Section I convicted and/or Petition dismissed for lack of merit.
6 Possession of and ammunition used in the commission of homicide in
People 5, 1987│ of Presidential Decree 1866 docketed as Criminal Case No. 19350. punished twice
Firearms and Criminal Case No. 19350 for the simple reason that the first
PARAS, J. Tangan moved to quash the information in Criminal Case No. 19350 for the same
Ammunitions jeopardy had not yet attached.
to no avail. Thus, the present petition. offense?

Ramon Galicia and Roberto Ureta were found guilty of the crime
homicide in for killing Ramon Abenir. Galicia then appealed the
G.R. No. YES. As held in People v. Serrano Sr., a verdict of acquittal is
decision, averring that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of WON a review
159261 | immediately final and a reexamination of the merits of such
Right Against homicide with co-accused Ureta, and that the prosecution has failed of the acquittal of
1 People February 21, acquittal, even in the appellate courts, will put the accused in
Double Jeopardy; to prove that he and Ureta conspired to kill Ramon, and that the Galicia would Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
7 v. CA 2007 | jeopardy for the same offense. It cannot be disputed that the
Homicide evidence given by the prosecution showed that it was only Ureta who constitute double
QUISUMBI verdict of CA to acquit Ramon Galicia is final and
stabbed Ramon Abenir. CA then acted favorably on Galicia’s appeal jeopardy?
NG, J. irreviewable.
and reversed the decision rendered. Galicia was acquitted of the
crime. The OSG filed a petition to review the ruling of CA.

26 members of the military were charged at the Sandiganbayan by

the Office of the Tanodbayan for the premeditated killing of Ninoy NO. The previous trial was a mock trial where the
WON an order
G.R. No. Aquino and Galman. Pres. Marcos, though he insisted on their authoritarian President ordered the Sandiganbayan and
for a re-trial after
Galman 72670 Right Against innocence, recommended the filing of murder charge and then the Tanodbayan to rig and closely monitor the trial which was
the acquittal of
1 v. September Double Jeopardy; implementation of acquittal so that double jeopardy may be invoked undertaken with due pressure to the judiciary. The court’s
the accused Order for a re-trial is granted.
8 Sandiga 12, 1986│ Assassination of later on. Upon close monitoring of the trial as ordered by Pres. decision of acquittal is one void of jurisdiction owing to its
would violate
nbayan TEEHANKE Ninoy Aquino Marcos, the Sandiganbayan did acquit all the accused. Thus, the failure in observing due process during the trial; therefore, the
their right against
E, C.J. petitioners filed an action for, among, others, miscarriage of justice judgment was also deemed void and double jeopardy cannot
double jeopardy?
against the Sandiganbayan and ordered a re-trial before an impartial be invoked.
tribunal.
Petitioner, charged with Homicide for killing 2Lt. Frederick Esquita,
SSGT. G.R. No. WON Petitioner
pleaded not guilty during arraignment. However, Judge Cajigal
Jose M. 157472 | Right Against was placed in NO. The requisite of double jeopardy that the first jeopardy
issued an order to the trial prosecutor to change the charge to
Pacoy v. September Double Jeopardy; double jeopardy must have attached prior to the second is not present,
1 Murder. On the date scheduled for pre-trial for Homicide, the
Hon. 28, 2007 │ Change of charge by the change of considering that petitioner was neither convicted nor Petition dismissed.
9 accused was to be re-arraigned for the crime of Murder. Petitioner
Afable AUSTRIA- from Homicide the charge from acquitted; nor was the case against him dismissed or
objected and filed a motion to Quash with Motion to Suspend
E. MARTINEZ to Murder Homicide to otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Proceedings on the ground of double jeopardy, which was denied by
Cajigal , J. Murder?
Judge Cajigal.
 NO. The appeal by the prosecution from the order of
WON the appeal dismissal of the Court of First Instance would not place the
Oscar Salico was charged with Homicide. After he had entered a plea
by the defendant in double jeopardy: First, because by the dismissal
of not guilty, and the prosecution had rested its case, the CFI of
prosecution from of the case by the court below upon motion of the defendant, Case returned to the lower court and the court a quo
84 Phil 722 | Negros Occidental, upon motion of counsel for the defense, issued an
the order of the the latter has not been in jeopardy; second, because the appeal is ordered to continue the trial of the case and decide
2 People October 13, Right Against order dated June 5, 1947, dismissing the case on the ground that the
CFI in the by the prosecution in such case would not place the defendant the case on the merits.
0 v. Salico 1949 │ Double Jeopardy; prosecution failed to prove that the offense imputed to the defendant
present case in double jeopardy; and third, because assuming arguendo that
FERIA, J. was committed within the jurisdiction of the court. Salico was
would place the the defendant had been already in jeopardy in the court below See dissent of Justice Paras.
immediately discharged from custody. This is an appeal by the
defendant in and would be placed in double jeopardy by the appeal, the
prosecution from the order of dismissal.
double jeopardy? defendant has waived his constitutional right not to be put in
danger of being convicted twice for the same offense.
NO. The Court ruled that, petitioner, having the previous
G.R. No. L- Petitioner was charged with falsification of public documents, Whether or not,
Silvestre charge against him quashed, has expressly waived his
53776 : however he filed Motion to Quash the said information and it was petitioner’s right
2 Cañiza constitutional right against double jeopardy for the reason that
March 18, Double Jeopardy granted by the trial court. Then after another information was filed against double  
1 v. he effectively prevented the trial court from proceeding to trial
1988 : for the same offense. Petition for dismissal was filed by the petitioner jeopardy can be
People on the merits and rendering a judgment of conviction against
Feliciano, J. but it was denied. invoked.
him.
Whether or not
the SBN acted
with grave abuse
of discretion Yes. Petitioner insists that private respondent has waived his
G.R. Nos. Estafa and attempted corruption of public officers were filed before
amounting to right to invoke double jeopardy in the light of his allegedly
PEOPL 153714-20 | the SBN by the Office of the Ombudsman against Espinosa.
lack or excess of "conditional"; arraignment. The right against double jeopardy
2 E vs. August 15, Espinosa was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Ombudsman
Double Jeopardy jurisdiction in is enshrined in Section 21 of Article III of the Constitution.  
2 ESPINO 2003 | withdraw the two cases and filed a new 7 informations for
dismissing The relinquishment of a constitutional right has to be laid out
SA PANGANIB Malversation of Public Funds. Espinosa argued double jeopardy.
Criminal Cases convincingly. Such waiver must be clear, categorical,
AN, J. Sandiganbayan dismissed the case.
Nos. 34622 to knowing and intelligent.
24628 as against
Respondent
Espinosa
Edgar Ibabao was charged for slight physical injuries through
G.R. No. reckless imprudence. After a month an information for serious No. The dismissal with consent of the accused results a waiver
People 64362. physical injuries through reckless imprudence was filed against the Whether or not on his right against double jeopardy. Thus, dismissal of a case
2
v. February 9, Double Jeopardy same accused. The fiscal and the other party did not appear in the there was double with the express consent of the accused will not bar another  
3
Declaro 1989| hearing. With Ibabao's consent, his counsel moved to dismissed the jeopardy prosecution for the same offense or appeal by the prosecution
Gancayco J first case. Due to the same reason the second case was dismissed on from such dismissal.
ground of double jeopardy.

No, The prisoner's re-arrest would not place him twice in

G.R. No. L- jeopardy because his re- incarceration is merely a continuation
PEOPL Tan was imprisoned in Samar provincial jail. His application for
21805 | Whether or not re of the penalty that he had not completely served due to the
2 E V. good conduct and time allowance was granted by the warden of the
February 25, Double Jeopardy arrest constitute erroneous act of the warden; it is not a new or subsequent  
4 FIDEL provincial jail. The fiscal ordered to re arrest Tan on the ground that
1967| Reyes. double jeopardy conviction. Neither would his re-arrest deprive him of liberty
TAN the warden has no authority for such release..
JBL without due process of law, because he was not yet entitled to
liberty at the time he was released.

Generoso Esmeña et al. were charged with grave coercion for YES. Cases that have been provisionally dismissed without
allegedly forcing Reverend Father Tomas Tibudan to withdraw the expressed consent of the defendant constitutes res judicata.
P5,000.00 because the priest lost in a game of cards. Esmeña et al. Revival of the case would place Esmeña et al under double
WON respondent
G.R. No. L- were arraigned and set for trial. However, the trial was delayed due jeopardy. In the case, there was no express consent given by Other than Sec. 21, Art. 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of
judge erred in
Esmena 541110 | to the prosecutor losing his record of the case. The trial was Esmeña et al. In cases like this, the judge would usually Courts states that “when a case against the defendant
2 Right Against granting the
vs. February 20, eventually set “for the last time” on August 16, 1979. Father Tibudan require the accused to sign the minutes of the session to show is dismissed or terminated without his express
5 Double Jeopardy; revival of the
Pogoy 1981 | did not appear because he was sick. Esmeña took advantage of the their conformity. That did not happen. Nevertheless, assuming consent,xxx the dismissal of the case shall be a bar
case, constituting
AQUINO, J. situation and invoked their right to have a speedy trial and motioned arguendo that Esmeña et al moved for the dismissal of the to another prosecution for the offense charged”.
double jeopardy
the court to dismiss the case. The court provisionally dismissed the case (and therefore, consented to it), the dismissal would still
case. Fiscal filed a motion for the revival of the case, which the place them in jeopardy. The use of “provisional” would not
respondent Judge Pogoy granted. Esmeña et al contend the revival of change the legal effect of the dismissal.
 the case on the ground that they did not consent to the provisional
dismissal of the case. Therefore, revival of the case would constitute
their double jeopardy.
Petitioners Andres and Guimmayen and one Tacipit were charged for
WON
the murder of Teolo Ramos to which they all pleaded not guilty.
G.R. No. L- information
After having sought and obtained several postponements, counsel for NO. Since the petitioners-accused and their counsel not only
54650 | should be
Andres the accused requested and was granted provisional dismissal of the asked for, but also consented to, the provisional dismissal of
2 March 29, Right Against quashed as it
vs. case. More than 7 years after the provisional dismissal of the case, a the case, their act operates as a waiver of their defense of
6 1982 | Double Jeopardy; violates
Cacdac new information charging petitioners and Tacipit for the murder of double jeopardy in the second prosecution for the same
CONCEPTI petitioners’ right
Teolo Ramos was led before the Circuit Criminal Court. Pleading offense.
ON, JR., J. to double
double jeopardy petitioners moved to quash the information which
jeopardy
was denied for lack off actual and legal basis.  
NO. In the case of People vs Tria-Triona, an acquittal is
Accused caused it to appear that work on the said project had been
immediately final and cannot be appealed on the ground of
accomplished and 100% completed per the approved Program of
double jeopardy. The only exception where double jeopardy
Work and Specifications and turned over to Barangay Malusac; as a
cannot be invoked is where there is a finding of mistrial
result of the issuance of the Accomplishment Report and Certificate
G.R. No. WON there is a resulting in a denial of due process. Certiorari will not be
of Project Completion and Turn-Over, payments of ₱511,612.20 and
People 173396 | grave abuse of issued to cure errors by the trial court in its appreciation of the
₱616,314.60 were made to and received by accused Wilfredo
2 vs. September Right Against discretion evidence of the parties, and its conclusions anchored on the
Cunanan notwithstanding the fact that no work had actually been
7 Sandiga 22, 2010 | Double Jeopardy; amounting to said findings and its conclusions of law. Petitioner has not
done on the Palto and Pakulayo Rivers. Sandiganbayan rendered an
nbayan PERALTA, lack or excess of convincingly shown that the prosecution has indeed been
assailed decision declaring the accused not guilty for Violation of
J. jurisdiction. deprived of due process of law. There is no showing that the
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. They are ordered acquitted of
trial court hampered the prosecution's presentation of
the said offense charged against them. Office of the Ombudsman,
evidence in any way. On the contrary, the prosecution was
through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, then filed the present
given ample opportunity to present its ten witnesses and all
petition for certiorari.
necessary documentary evidence.  
· Respondents Cesar Nazareno, Everlino Nartaez, and Nicasio Ma.
YES. The Court reiterated previous rulings on acquittal, being
Custodio were charged for violation of Section 3(g) of Rep. Act No. In resolving the case, the Court outlined the
final, no longer reviewable, and immediately executory,
3019, involving three separate but related contracts with a particular elements for double jeopardy to exist, to wit: (1)
explaining, based on the Constitution, prior jurisprudence, and
company, Beltra Industries, for the purchase and delivery of Caliber . first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the
the Rules of Court, that the absolute and inflexible rule is that
G.R. No. 45 Thompson Brand pistols which were allegedly overpriced. first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a
People WON there was the State is proscribed from appealing the judgment of
168982 | Respondent court acquitted private respondents, after evidence failed second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the
2 vs. Right Against double jeopardy acquittal through either a regular appeal under Rule 41 of the
August 5, to prove the requirement of Rep. Act No. 3019. Petitioner People of first. A first jeopardy attaches only after a valid
8 Nazaren Double Jeopardy; in the present Rules of Court, or an appeal by certiorari on pure questions of
2009 | the Philippines filed the present petition under Rule 45 of the Rules indictment; before a competent court; after
o case law under Rule 45 of the same Rules. However, the State may
BRION, J. of Court, alleging that respondent court gravely erred in relying on arraignment; when a valid plea has been entered;
challenge a judgment of acquittal when it is pursuant to the
the defense’s testimony and alleged laws of the United States in and when the accused was acquitted or convicted, or
exercise of judicial power to determine the presence of grave
resolving the acquittal of private respondents.In its objection, private the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated
abuse of discretion, through an extraordinary writ of certiorari
respondents allege that the review ought violates their constitutional without his express consent.
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
right against double jeopardy.
YES. The rule is that a judgment acquitting the accused is
Consuelo Aliga is the accountant of Dentrade, Inc. She is in charge
final and immediately executory upon its promulgation, and
G.R. No. with custody of the checks of the owner Dennis Villareal. In one of
that accordingly, the State may not seek its review without
166995 | Villareal’s transaction, Aliga changed the amount in the check from WON the appeal
Villareal placing the accused in double jeopardy. Such acquittal is final
2 January 13, Right Against 5,000 to 65,000. She pocketed the 60,000 difference. An information violates Aliga’s
vs. and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy whether it
9 2014 | Double Jeopardy; was filed against her for Qualified Theft thru Falsification of right against
Aliga happens at the trial court or on appeal at the CA. Thus, the
PERALTA, Commercial Document.RTC found Aliga Guilty. Aliga appealed to double jeopardy
State is proscribed from appealing the judgment of acquittal
J. the CA. The decision of the RTC was reversed and set aside.
of the accused to this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Villareal appealed to SC.
Court.  
 YES. Reason and precedent both coincide in that once
convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless
imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for that
Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner herein,
WON petitioner's same act. For the essence of the quasi offense of criminal
Jason Ivler was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig
constitutional negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in
with two separate offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
G.R No. right under the the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if
Ivler Slight Physical Injuries (Criminal Case No. 16831) ; (2) Reckless
172716 | 17 Double Jeopardy intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The law
3 vs.Mode Right Against Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property
November Clause bars penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result
0 sto-San Double Jeopardy; (Criminal Case No. 82366). Petitioner pleaded guilty for the first
2010 | further thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into
Pedro charge, but moved to quash the second charge invoking double
CARPIO, J. proceedings in account to determine the penalty. It does not qualify the
jeopardy having been convicted for the previous offense. MeTC
Criminal Case substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is single,
however, refused quashal finding no identity of offenses in the two
No. 82366. whether the injurious result should affect one person or
cases
several persons, the offense (criminal negligence) remains one
and the same, and can not be split into different crimes and
prosecution.  

W/N the
NO. In order for a punishment to be prohibited, it must both
G.R. No. Prohibition punishment of
be unusual and cruel. Banishment does not fit his category.
Legarda 513, against cruel and The accused was prosecuted based upon article 458, which assigns a banishment is
There is no reason why unusual punishments which were not
1 vs. February 25, degrading penalty of destierro and a fine of from 625 to 6,250 pesetas. The cruel and unusual
cruel should have been prohibited. If that had been done, it
Valdez 1902, punishment; assignment of destierro as punishment was questioned. and therefore
would have been impossible to change the punishments that
Willard, J. Destierro should be
existed when the Constitution was adopted.
prohibited
 
NO. The penalty of cadena temporal, even if it be granted that
Accused is convicted in a crime of asesinato (assassination, murder
all the code provisions relating thereto are still in force, when
G.R. No. L- Prohibition in the first degree). The counsel of the accused contends that the W/N cadena
imposed upon a convict of the crime of asesinato, would not,
5487, against cruel and penalties of cadena temporal and cadena perpetua, as defined and temporal and
US vs. in our opinion, be a cruel or unusual punishment, unless it is
2 February 11, degrading prescribed by the code, are essentially and inherently cruel and perpetua are
Pico rendered so by the single provision touching the carrying of
1911, punishment; unusual punishment, the infliction of either of which as a penalty for cruel and unusual
chains, and as we have shown, this provision has undoubtedly
Carson, J. Cadena temporal any crime, whatever its nature may be, is prohibited by the Philippine punishments
been abrogated or, at least, has long since become obsolete
Bill of Rights.
and unenforceable.  

W/N
Prohibition confinement
G.R. No. L- Estoista was charged with homicide through reckless imprudence NO. Considering the prevalent conditions which the law seeks
against cruel and from 5 to 10
People 5793, and illegal possession of firearm. In his possession, a rifle of his to curb, confinement from 5 to 10 years for possessing or
degrading years for
3 vs. August 27, father Bruno Estoista was found. Estoista appeals for an acquittal and carrying firearm is not cruel or degrading. The circumstances
punishment; possessing or
Estoista 1953, contends that the penalty of 5 to 10 years of imprisonment and fine justify an imprisonment which in normal circumstances might
Posessison of carrying firearm
Tuazon, J. imposed upon possessing or carrying firearm is cruel and degrading. appear excessive.
firearm is cruel or
degrading
 
Prohibition
Defendant was charged with the crime of falsification of a public
against cruel and YES. There is no lawful penalty being prescribed by the code
G.R. No. L- document by a public official. Defendant contends the court was W/N the
degrading for the falsification of a public document by a public official.
5977, without jurisdiction to impose any penalty upon the defendant for the sentence of the
US vs. punishment; There is nothing in article 568 defining and penalizing
4 February 11, crime of reckless negligence in the falsification of a public trial court lacks
Pacheco Falsification of reckless negligence (imprudencia temeraria) which authorizes
1911, document, since the only penalties prescribed by law for reckless jurisdiction to
public document the imposition of a penalty for reckless negligence in the
Carson, J. negligence (imprudencia temeraria), are to be found in Article 568 of decide the case
by a public falsification of a public document by a public official.
the Penal Code.
official  
NO. A reading of Section 19(1) of article III will readily show
Three of four accused who were convicted guilty by the trial court that there is really nothing therein which expressly declares
G.R. Nos. Rights of a W/N the death
for the murder of the Bulatao family, and sentnced with the the abolition of the death penalty. The provision merely says
People 38969-70 | Convict/Prisoner; penalty had been
maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Defendants- that the death penalty shall not be imposed unless for
5 v. February 9, Murder; Death ultimately
appellants appealed the conviction on the grounds of the compelling reasons involving heinous crimes the Congress
Munoz 1989 | Cruz, Penalty; abolished by Art.
inconsistencoes of the witnesses' testimonies and the Constitutional hereafter provides for it and, if already imposed, shall be
J. Abolition III, Sec. 19.
prohibition against the death penalty. reduced to reclusion perpetua. The language, while rather
awkward, is still plain enough. And it is a settled rule of legal  
 hermeneutics that if the language under consideration is plain,
it is neither necessary nor permissible to resort to extrinsic
aids, like the records of the constitutional convention, for its
interpretation.
NO. The forfeiture of life simply because life was taken,
never was a defining essence of the death penalty in the
context of our legal history and cultural experience; rather, the
death penalty is imposed in heinous crimes because the
perpetrators thereof have committed unforgivably execrable
Rights of a
acts that have so deeply dehumanized a person or criminal
G.R. No. Convict/Prisoner; Leo Echegaray was convicted for the rape of his 12-year-old W/N the death
People acts with severely destructive effects on the national efforts to
117472 | Death Penalty; stepdaughter. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the death penalty is a cruel,
v. lift the masses from abject poverty through organized
6 February 7, Cruel, penalty had been abolished by the 1987 Constitution and is a form of degrading, or
Echegar governmental strategies based on a disciplined and honest
1997 | Per Degrading, or cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, which is also prohibited inhuman form of
ay citizenry, and because they have so caused irreparable and
Curiam Inhuman by the Constitution. punishment.
substantial injury to both their victim and the society and a
Punishment
repetition of their acts would pose actual threat to the safety of
individuals and the survival of government, they must be
permanently prevented from doing so. At any rate, the Court
had no doubts as to the innate heinousness of the crime of
rape.  
NO. The Court reiterated its ruling on the Echegaray case,
enumerating the significant points it made in the previous
ruling, to wit:

1. The death penalty is not a “cruel, unjust, excessive or

unusual punishment.” It is an exercise of the state’s power to
“secure society against the threatened and actual evil.”
2. The offenses for which Republic Act No. 7659 provides the
G.R. No. The two accused-appelants in this case were convicted for the W/N the death death penalty satisfy “the element of heinousness” by
People 116239 | Rights of a kidnapping and murder of a 17-year-old, and were sentenced to penalty is a cruel, specifying the circumstances which generally qualify a crime
7 v. November Convict/Prisoner; receive the death penalty. They argue that the death penalty should unjust, excessive, to be punishable by death;
Mercado 29, 2000 | Death Penalty be ruled unconstitutional for being cruel, unjust, excessive, and and unusual form 3. Republic Act No. 7659 provides both procedural and
Per Curiam unusual form of punishment. of punishment. substantial safeguards to insure its correct application; and
4. The Constitution does not require that “a positive
manifestation in the form of a higher incidence of crime
should first be perceived and statistically proven” before the
death penalty may be prescribed. Congress is authorized under
the Constitution to determine when the elements of
heinousness and compelling reasons are present, and the Court
would exceed its own authority if it questioned the exercise of
such discretion.  

YES. The Court found R.A. No. 9346 to unequivocally bar

the application of the death penalty, as well as to expressly
repeal all such statutory provisions requiring the application
The Court of Appeals convicted appellant of 6 counts of rape and 2 W/N the of the death penalty. The Court likewise held that the said Act
Rights of a
G.R. No. counts of attempted rape, reducing the trial court's conviction of enactment of intended to delete the word "death" from the scale of penalties
Convict/Prisoner;
166401 | death penalty to an indeterminate indeterminate penalty of 10 years Republic Act No. under Art. 71, and by effect necessarily extends to its
People Death Penalty;
8 October 30, as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as 9346 resulted in relevance to the graduated scale of penalties under Article 71.
v. Bon Abolition;
2006 | Tinga, maximum for attempted rape, on the ground of the enactment of the statutory In the case of accused-appellant, the determination of his
Reduced
J. Republic Act No. 9346, which abolished the death peanlty and interdiction of penalty for attempted rape shall be reckoned not from two
Sentence
provided for the reduction of penalties therefrom. the death penalty. degrees lower than death, but two degrees lower than
reclusion perpetua. Hence, the maximum term of his penalty
shall no longer be reclusion temporal, as ruled by the Court of
Appeals, but instead, prision mayor.