Sunday, March 8, 2015

Double jeopardy - Condrada vs People : 141646 : February 28, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division

See - Condrada vs People : 141646 : February 28, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division





"x x x.

The proscription against double jeopardy[10] presupposes that an accused has been previously charged with an offense, and the case against him is terminated either by his acquittal or conviction, or dismissed in any other manner without his consent.  As a general rule, the following requisites must be present for double jeopardy to attach:  (1)  a  valid  indictment, (2)  before  a  court  of competent jurisdiction, (3) the arraignment of the accused, (4) a valid plea entered by him, and (5) the acquittal or conviction of the accused, or the dismissal or termination of the case against him without his express consent.   However, there are two exceptions to the foregoing rule, and double jeopardy may attach even if the dismissal of the case was with the consent of the accused: first, when there is insufficiency of evidence to support the charge against him; and second, where there has been an unreasonable delay in the proceedings, in violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial. [11]
Petitioner is not in danger of being twice put in jeopardy with the reinstatement of Criminal Case No. 10770 because as earlier stated, said case was provisionally dismissed by the trial court upon his motion.  Thus, the requirement that the dismissal of the case must be without the consent of the accused is not present in this case. Neither does the case fall under any of the aforecited exceptions.   The prosecution had not yet presented evidence at the time the case was dismissed on May 31, 1999.  Moreover, as previously explained, said dismissal was temporary in nature, as the case was subject to reinstatement within thirty days from the date of dismissal.  Hence, the Court finds no error on the part of the trial court in allowing the reinstatement of Criminal Case No. 10770.
x x x."