Search results
DOUBLE JEOPARDY. Article 2, SECTION 21- Philippines Constitution----- Attachment of jeopardy -----People v. Ylagan – physical injuries – A defendant is in legal jeopardy when he was put to trial in the following conditions: a. in a court of competent jurisdiction b. upon a valid complaint or information c. after he has been arraigned
To substantiate a claim of double jeopardy, the following must be proven: a. The first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second. b. The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated. c. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense, or the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first ...
Aug 3, 2020 · The rule against double jeopardy is constitutionally-protected as it is enshrined in Article III, Section 21 of the Fundamental Law. Notwithstanding, the rule against double jeopardy is not without exceptions, both as to a previous conviction or acquittal. First, as to conviction. Rule 117, Section 7 of the Rules of Court expressly provides ...
January 11, 2018. G.R. No. 223099. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. LINO ALEJANDRO y PIMENTEL, Accused-Appellant. D E C I S I O N. TIJAM, J.: This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated February 1 7, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05256, which affirmed the July 26, 2011 Joint Decision2 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cauayan City, Isabela ...
The 1987 Constitution and its predecessors guarantee the right of the accused against double jeopardy.47 Section 7, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court strictly adheres to the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy and provides for the requisites in order for double jeopardy to attach: Sec. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double ...
Manila. EN BANC. G.R. No. L-3580 March 22, 1950. CONRADO CARMELO, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, respondent-appellees. Jose A. Fojas for petitioner. First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Martiniano P. Vivo for respondents.
FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 237489, August 27, 2020 ] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. DOMINGO ARCEGA Y SIGUENZA, RESPONDENT. DECISION. PERALTA, C.J.: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari filed by the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated August 7, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in ...
