RIGHTS AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY 108.

Cuizon vs Court of Appeals 289 SCRA 159

109. ALMARIO VS COURT OF APPEALS 355 SCRA 1

In the case at bar, the initially put into jeopardy but he it was terminated by his discharge. When the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, the issue was about the civil aspect of the criminal case. Thus, there could be no double jeopardy. 111. People vs Feliciano October 10, 2001

110. Manantan vs Court of Appeals 350 SCRA 387 FACTS: When Manantan was driving a Toyota car going home with his friends(Ambrocio, Tabangin, Nicolas), there was a jeepney suddenly came from the opposite direction hit the driver side of the car. Consequently, Nicolas,Manantans friend, died. Trial followed. The Lower court acquitted the accused of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. The respondents filed their notice of appeal on the civil aspect of the lower courts judgment. Even if the accused was acquitted from his criminal liability, the appellate court held him civilly liable and ordered him to indemnify the aggrieved party for the death of Nicolas ISSUE: Whether or not Manantan was placed on double jeopardy HELD: Manantan claimed that he was placed on double jeopardy but the courts did not give merit to this contention. The following elements must be present for double jeopardy to exist: (1) A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) The first jeopardy must have terminated; and (3) the third jeopardy must be for the same offense as the first.

FACTS: 112. Merciales vs Court of Appeals 379 SCRA 345 113 Potot vs People 383 SCRA 449 FACTS: Petitioner Potot was charged with homicide. Upon arraignment, he pleaded guilty to the charge. Thereupon, the trial court convicted Potot of homicide. The petitioner filed a manifestation with motion that he is not appealing from the Decision. However, the wife of the victim, filed a motion for reconsideration/retrial praying that the Decision be set aside and that the case be heard again because there were irregularities committed before and during the trial which caused miscarriage of justice. The trial court granted private complainant's motion and set aside its Decision and ordered that the records of the case be remanded to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for re-evaluation of the evidence and to file the corresponding charge. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration contending that the trial court has no jurisdiction to issue the order as the Decision had become final, and that the said order would place the accused in double jeopardy. This was denied for the reason that the State is not bound by the error or negligence of its prosecuting officers, hence, jeopardy does not attach. Issue: Whether or not the judgment has become final that the accused right against double jeopardy will be violated upon re-trial of the same case.

RIGHTS AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY HELD: Affirmative. A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected. Except where the death penalty is imposed, a judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or when the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal, or has applied for probation. Only the accused may ask for a modification or setting aside of a judgment of conviction. And this he must do before the said judgment becomes final or before he perfects his appeal. Such judgment becomes final in any of the following ways: (a) when no appeal is seasonably filed by the accused, except in case of automatic review of the decision imposing the capital penalty; (b)when he has partially or totally served his sentence; (c) when he expressly waives his right to appeal the judgment, except when the death penalty is imposed; or (d) when he applies for probation. When one of these circumstances is present, the trial court which rendered the judgment of conviction loses jurisdiction to alter, modify or revoke it. In this case, petitioner filed a manifestation expressly waiving his right to appeal therefrom. Such waiver has the effect of causing the judgment to become final and unalterable.

assailed orders would violate the constitutional right of the petitioner against double jeopardy.

Such right prohibits any subsequent prosecution of any person for a crime of which he has previously been acquitted or convicted. The objective is to set the effects of the first prosecution forever at rest, assuring the accused that he shall not thereafter be subjected to the peril and anxiety of a second charge against him for the same offense. To invoke the defense of double jeopardy, the following requisites must be present: (1) a valid complaint or information; (2) the court has jurisdiction to try the case; (3) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and (4) he has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

Thus, it was beyond the authority of the trial court to issue the order setting aside its Decision which had attained finality. A judgment which has acquired the status of finality becomes immutable. Any error, assuming one was committed in the judgment, will not justify its amendment except only to correct clerical errors or mistakes. The