Double Jeopardy (Demo)

Any person can be convicted of any crime that he or she committed, for as long as it has been proven that they are guilty. A fundamental safeguard. However, the constitution provides any accused of protection from being tried for the same offense. It serves a purpose and an importance for both the state and the individual. The principle of double jeopardy is a balance between the state’s right to punish as well as the accused’s rights. Other than protecting an individual from being tried for the same crime, it also protects them from a possible abuse of power. 

Legal basis

Double jeopardy is discussed in the 1987 Constitution – particularly in the Bill of Rights Article III, Section 21. The constitution is the primary source against double jeopardy, stating that no one shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same punishment or crime. Furthermore, there are also governing rules under Rule 117, Section 7 of the Rules of Court. This codifies double jeopardy grounds, providing its elements, requisites, and other details. 

Double Jeopardy Requisites 

The requisites for jeopardy are provided by the rules of court, and these must be present for an action to be considered such. The requisites are as follows: 

• There must be a valid complaint
  • The complaint must stem from substantial and valid information. Moreover, the charge must be valid in form, substance, and legally sufficient to sustain a conviction. 
• A competent court must have jurisdiction
  • The jurisdiction over the subject matter and the accused must be over a competent court 
• The accused entered a valid plea
  • The accused must have been arraigned and have plead either guilty or not guilty in the prior case 
• Terminated first jeopardy
  • The court must have rendered a finality of the previous case either through conviction, acquittal, or a dismissal not based on the accused’s consent. 
• Same offense for the second prosecution
  •  The subsequent prosecution must involve or cover the same offense or one that is necessarily included in the previously charged one.
    

Double Jeopardy Effects 

Double jeopardy protects the accused of being charged and convicted twice for the same offense. It bars a second prosecution in doing so. In relation to this, it also prevents courts and others involved in abusing their powers. Furthermore, it also extends to the attempts to prosecute the same act under different charges if these came from the same facts.

Exceptions and Limitations 

The Philippine laws also provide the exceptions and limitations to double jeopardy. There are certain circumstances whether or not double jeopardy is specified and explicitly present. 

• The accused’s appeal does not constitute double jeopardy, and one can open the case for review 
• Graver offenses of the same act are later discovered
  • The acquittal can be overturned if there was grave abuse of discretion by the court – as if they lacked jurisdiction, and or the state being denied the right to due process. 
• Acquittal through grave abuse of discretion may be nullified by certiorari 
• There was a lack of competent court and or valid information from the previous charge. Furthermore, if the acquittal was acquired through  false testimony, the accused may be retried.
• Double jeopardy does not generally apply when a case has been dismissed upon the motion or expressed consent of the accused. This occurs when the accused files a motion to quash.  
• The supervening event doctrine states when a new fact or evidence arises from the first trial that causes grave changes, these constitute a new crime. The rule of identity does not apply when a new fact supervenes or overrules after the first one. 
• When there is grave abuse of discretion by the courts, judgement of acquittal is generally unappealable. If it amounts to a lack of jurisdiction, the acquittal is considered void and a review does not violate double jeopardy. 

In the case of Manuel Ubarra, Jr vs the People, Ubarra was accused of perjury for false statements in his complaint-affidavit. The court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, stating that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court said that the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy does not apply when an acquittal is rendered with grave abuse of discretion¹. 

1. People of the Philippines v. Ubarra, Jr., G.R. No. 249890 (Oct. 9, 2024) ↩︎

Please follow and like us: