Double jeopardy exists when the following
requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2)
the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is
for the same offense as in the first. A first jeopardy attaches only (a) after
a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d)
when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted
or convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent. Since we have held that the March 17, 2004 Order granting the motion
to dismiss was committed with grave abuse of discretion, then respondents were
not acquitted nor was there a valid and legal dismissal or termination of the
case. Ergo, the fifth requisite which requires the conviction and acquittal of
the accused, or the dismissal of the case without the approval of the accused,
was not met. Thus, double jeopardy has not set in. (JOSEPH C. CEREZO vs. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 185230, June 1, 2011, NACHURA, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.