Consti 2

Double Jeopardy
Section 21. 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.
PEOPLE VS. OBSANIA [23 SCRA 1249; G.R. L-24447; 29 JUN 1968]
Facts: The accused was charged with Robbery with Rape before the Municipal Court of
Balungao, Pangasinan. He pleaded not guilty. His counsel moved for the dismissal of the charge
for failure to allege vivid designs in the info. Said motion was granted. From this order of
dismissal the prosecution appealed.
engaged in his duties, petitioners allegedly pointed their guns at him. Thus, he immediately
ordered his subordinate to call the police and block road to prevent the petitioners’ escape.
Upon the arrival of the police, petitioners put their guns down and were immediately
apprehended.
A complaint “grave threats” was filed against the petitioners (Criminal Case No. 5204). It was
dismissed by the court acting on the motion of the petitioners. Mabuyo filed a MOR thus the
dismissal was reversed. Thereafter, petitioners filed for “certiorari, prohibition, damages, with
relief of preliminary injunction and the issuance of a TRO” (CEB-9207). Petition is dismissed for
lack of merit and for being a prohibited pleading and ordered to proceed with the trial of the
case. Hence, this instant petition.

Issues: (1) Whether or Not the dismissal of 5204 was a judgment of acquittal.
Issue: Whether or Not the present appeal places the accused in Double Jeopardy.

(2) Whether or Not the judge ignored petitioner’s right against double jeopardy by dismissing
Held: In order that the accused may invoke double jeopardy, the following requisites must
CEB-9207.
have obtained in the original prosecution, a) valid complaint, b) competent court, c) the
defendant had pleaded to the charge, d) defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case
Held: For double jeopardy to attach, the dismissal of the case must be without the express
against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
consent of the accused. Where the dismissal was ordered upon motion or with the express
assent of the accused, he has deemed to have waived his protection against double jeopardy.
In the case at bar, the converted dismissal was ordered by the Trial Judge upon the defendant's
In the case at bar, the dismissal was granted upon motion of the petitioners. Double jeopardy
motion to dismiss. The “doctrine of double jeopardy” as enunciated in P.vs. Salico applies to
thus did not attach.
wit when the case is dismissed with the express consent of the defendant, the dismissal will
not be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense because his action in having the case
Furthermore, such dismissal is not considered as an acquittal. The latter is always based on
is dismissed constitutes a waiver of his constitutional right/privilege for the reason that he
merit that shows that the defendant is beyond reasonable doubt not guilty. While the former,
thereby prevents the Court from proceeding to the trial on the merits and rendering a
in the case at bar, terminated the proceedings because no finding was made as to the guilt or
judgment of conviction against him.
innocence of the petitioners.

In essence, where a criminal case is dismissed provisionally not only with the express consent
The lower court did not violate the rule when it set aside the order of dismissal for the
of the accused but even upon the urging of his counsel there can be no double jeopardy under
reception of further evidence by the prosecution because it merely corrected its error when it
Sect. 9 Rule 113, if the indictment against him is revived by the fiscal.
prematurely terminated and dismissed the case without giving the prosecution the right to
complete the presentation of its evidence. The rule on summary procedure was correctly
PAULIN VS. GIMENEZ [217 SCRA 386; G.R. NO. 103323; 21 JAN 1993]
applied.
Facts: Respondent and Brgy Capt. Mabuyo, while in a jeep, were smothered with dust when
they were overtaken by the vehicle owned by Petitioner Spouses. Irked by such, Mabuyo
followed the vehicle until the latter entered the gate of an establishment. He inquired the
nearby security guard for the identity of the owner of the vehicle. Later that day, while