Photo from Pexels | KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
In a legal system that promises fairness, the principle of double jeopardy protects individuals from being unjustly accused and prosecuted for the same offense more than once. This is enshrined in Article III, Section 21 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provides:
“No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. 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.”
RATIONALE
The core goal or purpose of this provision is to protect individuals from repeated prosecutions for the same offense and to uphold the finality of legal judgments. Once an accused has been acquitted or convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction, and the judgment becomes final, they cannot be tried again for the same offense based on the same facts.
Nevertheless, there are express exceptions to this rule with regard to both conviction and acquittal:
ELEMENTS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY
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. (JOSEPH C. CEREZO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 185230, June 1, 2011)
EXCEPTIONS TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOLLOWING CONVICTION
Under Rule 117, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, certain exceptions allow a second prosecution even after a conviction. These apply when a graver offense, arising from the same act or omission, emerges after the initial case has been resolved. These situations include:
- The graver offense arose from supervening facts that occurred after the original charge;
- The facts supporting the graver offense were discovered only after the accused had entered a plea;
- The accused pleaded guilty to a lesser offense without the consent of both the prosecutor and the offended party (except in cases covered under Rule 116, Section 1[f]).
In these instances, the original judgment does not shield the accused from further liability; however, the law upholds fairness by providing that the accused should be credited for any penalty already served if a new conviction is later secured.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE FINALITY OF ACQUITTAL
Generally, a judgment of acquittal is final, unappealable, and immediately executory upon its promulgation. Still, this ironclad rule admits one narrow exception—when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. This arises in situations where the prosecution’s right to due process is violated, such as when it is denied the opportunity to present evidence, or where the trial is a sham or a mistrial, thereby rendering the judgment of acquittal void.
This tenet has a single, narrow exception that finds anchor in the due process guarantee of our Constitution: grave abuse of discretion that has resulted in the violation of the State’s right to due process, thereby rendering the judgment of acquittal void, such as when:
(a) the prosecution is denied the opportunity to present evidence,
(b) the trial is a sham., or
(c) there is a mistrial.
Both the State and the accused are entitled to due process, and a denial of this guarantee against any of the parties of the case amounts to a grave abuse of Discretion. (UBARRA, JR. VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 249890, October 09, 2024).
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.