Está en la página 1de 2


What are the requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy?

1.) A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second;
2.) The first jeopardy must have terminated;
3.) The second jeopardy must be the same offense as that in the first
When does jeopardy of punishment attach?
Jeopardy attaches (a) upon a good indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c)
after arraignment, (d) after plea. (People v. Ylagan, G.R. No. L-38443 , 1993)
The accused, A, has pleaded guilty and was allowed to present evidence for
mitigation. However, A, presented evidence amounting to complete selfdefense and the court acquits him. He was prosecuted for the second time
for the same offense. May A invoke double jeopardy?
No. The presentation of evidence of complete self-defense amounted to a withdrawal
of his original plea. Since no new plea was entered, there was no attachment of the
first jeopardy. (People v. Balisacan. G.R. No. L-26376 , 1966)
A case was filed in MTC. When the prosecution realized that the case should
have been filed in Makati, it filed a case in Makati. May the accused invoke
double jeopardy?
No. The first jeopardy did not validly attach. The court in Makati has no jurisdiction.
Therefore, the accused was in no danger of being placed in jeopardy (LOOK FOR
May double jeopardy be invoked when the other case used as basis of the
first jeopardy has not been terminated?
No. It is the conviction, acquittal of the accused or dismissal or termination of the
case that bars further prosecution for the same offense or any attempt to commit the
same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is
necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information.
( Bulaong v. People, G.R. No. L-19344, 1966)
When will an appeal by prosecution from order of dismissal by trial court
not constitute double jeopardy?
(1) If the dismissal is made upon motion, or with the express consent of the
(2) Dismissal is not an acquittal or based upon consideration of evidence or of the
merits of the case
(3) The question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely legal so that
should the dismissal be found incorrect, the case would have to be remanded to
the court of origin for further proceedings to determine the guilt or innocence of
the defendant.
(People v. Judge Villalon, G.R. No. 43659, 1990)
When due to several postponements because of the unavailability of the
witnesses, the judge dismisses the case verbally granting the motion to
dismiss by the accused on the ground of denial of speedy trial and proceeds
to hear other cases, and subsequently, the witnesses arrived and upon

explanation the judge resumed hearing the verbally dismissed case, will
there be double jeopardy?
No. The verbal dismissal is not final until written and signed by the judge. (Rivera,
Jr. v. People, G.R, No. 93219, 1990)
There were delays in the trial which were beyond the control of the accused
and the prosecution. Subsequently, the case was dismissed with the
consent of the accused. Later, the case was reinstated. Was there double
No. First, the delays were not unreasonable; hence, there was no denial of the right
to speedy trial. Second, the dismissal was with the consent of the accused.
Therefore, the reinstatement did not violate the right against double jeopardy.
(Almaria v. CA, G.R. No. 127772, 2001)
The accused move to dismiss the case before the start of the trial on the
ground that the facts alleged in the information did not constitute an
offense. Dismissal was granted but subsequently reversed by the Supreme
Court. May the accused invoke double jeopardy upon reinstatement of the
No. The dismissal was not on the merits because no evidence had yet been
presented and it was with the consent of the accused upon its motion. (People v.
Cuevo, G.R. No. L-27607, 1981)
May the prosecution appeal a judgement of acquittal?
No. No error, however flagrant, committed by the court against the State, can be
reserved by it for decision by the Supreme Court when the defendant has once been
placed in jeopardy and discharged even though the discharge was the result of the
error committed. (People v. Pomeroy, G.R. No. L-8229, 1955)
To avail of the defense of double jeopardy must the second offense charged
in every case be the same as the first offense?
The second sentence of Section 22 says: 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. Therefore, the offenses need not be the same,
provided, however, that they flow from the same act. (Yap v. Lutero, G.R. No. L12669, 1956)
What is the doctrine of supervening events?

Where after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the
defendant is responsible, which changes the character of the offense
and, together with the facts existing at the time,
constitutes a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to
be in second jeopardy if indicted for the second offense. (Melo v. People,
G.R. No. L-3580, 1950)