Search results
Sep 22, 2023 · The constitutional right against double jeopardy protects one against a second or later prosecution for the same offense, and that when the subsequent information charges another and different offense, although arising from the same act or set of acts, there is no prohibited double jeopardy.
Thus, the rule on double jeopardy protects the accused by prohibiting the state from charging or convicting a person of either the same offense or the same act. These two categories of double jeopardy is differentiated in People v. Quijada:43. Thirdly, our Bill of Rights deals with two (2) kinds of double jeopardy.
Learn the meaning, requirements and exceptions of double jeopardy in Philippine criminal procedure. Find out how to raise the defense of double jeopardy and when it applies.
Section 7, Rule 117 of the 1985 and 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure strictly adhere to the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy and provide for the requisites in order for double jeopardy to attach.
It is beyond cavil that double jeopardy did not set in. 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.
The right against double jeopardy was brought into the Philippine legal system by the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Kepner v. United States 30 (Kepner). In the said case, the Supreme Court of the Philippines reversed a ruling of the court of first instance acquitting the accused therein of estafa .
Apr 9, 2024 · Understanding the nuances of double jeopardy in the Philippine legal context requires an appreciation of its purpose—to protect individuals from the stress, anxiety, and expenses of being tried more than once for the same act or conduct.
