Double jeopardy | Motion to Quash (RULE 117) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Below is a comprehensive discussion of the concept of double jeopardy under Philippine criminal procedure, with particular focus on Rule 117 of the Rules of Court (on motions to quash), relevant constitutional and statutory provisions, and notable jurisprudential rulings. I will endeavor to be as meticulous as possible, adhering to the perspective of Philippine law.

I. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY BASIS

  1. 1987 Constitution, Article III (Bill of Rights), 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 bar prosecution for the same act.”

  2. Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

    • Particularly Section 3(f) of Rule 117 provides that one of the grounds for a motion to quash is:

      “That the defendant has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.”

    • This codifies the constitutional right against double jeopardy, laying down a procedural mechanism for its invocation before trial.

II. ELEMENTS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY

For double jeopardy to attach, all the following requisites must be present:

  1. A valid complaint or information

    • The complaint or information must be sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction (i.e., it must state the facts and the law violated so as to inform the accused of the nature and cause of accusation).

  2. Jurisdiction of the court

    • The court where the first case was tried must be a court of competent jurisdiction over the offense charged and over the person of the accused.

  3. Arraignment and plea

    • The accused must have been validly arraigned in the first proceeding and must have entered a valid plea (whether guilty or not guilty).
    • Without arraignment, the accused is not considered “in jeopardy.”

  4. Acquittal, conviction, or dismissal/termination without express consent

    • The case must have been resolved by (a) an acquittal, (b) a conviction, or (c) a dismissal or termination of the case without the express consent of the accused.
    • A dismissal on the merits or one that is tantamount to an acquittal can trigger double jeopardy protections.
    • If the dismissal was upon the motion or with the express consent of the accused, double jeopardy generally will not attach, unless such dismissal is based on insufficiency of the evidence or results in an acquittal on the merits.

Note: All four elements must concur for the protection against double jeopardy to apply.

III. APPLICATION: MOTION TO QUASH (RULE 117)

A. Ground Under Section 3(f)

A motion to quash may be filed before entering a plea, relying on the ground that the accused has been “previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged” or that the previous case was “dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.” The reasoning is that no person can be put on trial again for the same offense once jeopardy has attached and concluded.

B. Timing of the Motion to Quash

  • Before arraignment: If the accused discovers that the new charge is exactly the same or is an offense that is necessarily included in the offense for which he or she has already been convicted/acquitted/dismissed, the proper remedy is to file a motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy before pleading.
  • Exception: Rule 117, Section 9 allows certain defenses (including double jeopardy) to be raised even after entering a plea, if it appears from the record that the court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged, or if it appears that the offense charged is barred by the statute of limitations or by double jeopardy.

IV. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

A. Same Offense or Necessarily Included Offense

The constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy applies if the second prosecution is for:

  1. The same offense; or
  2. Any offense that necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information.

Under Section 7, Rule 117:

“When an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information… he shall not again be prosecuted for the same offense or any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged.”

“Necessarily includes or is necessarily included” means:

  • If in proving the offense charged, the other offense is likewise proven, the latter is necessarily included. Thus, an acquittal or conviction for theft bars prosecution for robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons if the facts needed to prove the second offense were already comprehensively covered by the first prosecution (or vice versa).

B. Distinguishing Different Offenses

If the second charge involves a different offense and requires proof of additional or different elements not present in the first offense, double jeopardy will not apply.

  • The test often used is the “same evidence test” and the “identity of offenses test.” Under the same evidence test, if the evidence required to support a conviction for the second offense would have been sufficient to convict the accused of the first offense, the two offenses are identical and double jeopardy will apply.

C. Dismissal with Express Consent of the Accused

The principle is that if the accused seeks or expressly consents to a dismissal before the prosecution rests its case (e.g., moving to dismiss on a ground other than insufficiency of evidence), it will generally not be a basis for double jeopardy.

  • Exception: If the dismissal is based on the violation of the accused’s constitutional right (e.g., violation of the right to speedy trial) or the failure of the prosecution to prosecute (lack of evidence) leading to an acquittal on the merits, double jeopardy may attach despite the accused’s apparent consent.

D. Remedy When Motion to Quash Is Denied

If the trial court denies a motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy, the usual immediate remedy is to:

  1. File a motion for reconsideration or certiorari under Rule 65, if there is a claim of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
  2. Proceed to trial and if convicted, raise the issue on appeal.

V. NOTABLE DOCTRINES AND JURISPRUDENCE

  1. People v. Ylagan

    • Reiterates that double jeopardy attaches once an accused is arraigned under a valid information, the court has jurisdiction, and the prosecution fails to prove the offense or otherwise leads to an acquittal.

  2. Gavieres v. U.S. (an older Philippine case under U.S. sovereignty, still instructive)

    • The “same evidence” test: Even if the charges arise from the same act, if each offense requires proof of an additional fact or element that the other does not, they are distinct offenses.

  3. People v. Bocar

    • Emphasizes that dismissal without the accused’s express consent bars a second prosecution if the dismissal is tantamount to an acquittal.

  4. Caes v. IAC

    • Affirms that double jeopardy does not attach if the first information was void or if the first court lacked jurisdiction.

  5. Felisilda v. People

    • Clarifies that an accused cannot be placed in jeopardy by a void indictment or in a court that lacks jurisdiction. Thus, if the first case was void ab initio, it does not give rise to a valid jeopardy.

  6. Villasis v. CA

    • Illustrates the principle that once a valid dismissal or acquittal is rendered by a competent court, the prosecution cannot circumvent the double jeopardy rule by simply refiling a new information for the same or an included offense.

VI. EXCEPTIONS AND SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

  1. Lack of Jurisdiction or Invalid Information

    • No double jeopardy if the first proceeding was void for lack of jurisdiction or for having a fatally defective information.

  2. Demurrer to Evidence

    • If the accused files a demurrer to evidence without express leave of court and it is granted (leading to an acquittal), the prosecution cannot appeal (that would violate double jeopardy). If it is denied, the accused cannot present evidence anymore (he waived that right by filing the demurrer without leave), but no second prosecution for the same offense will arise out of that scenario.
    • If a demurrer is filed with leave of court and denied, the accused may still present evidence. If it is granted (resulting in an acquittal), the prosecution’s only possible remedy is to question it by certiorari if there is grave abuse of discretion.

  3. Supervening Event Doctrine

    • A second prosecution may be allowed if new facts (“supervening event”) transpire after the first conviction or acquittal, giving rise to a new and distinct offense. For instance, if the victim dies after the accused was initially prosecuted for physical injuries, the subsequent prosecution for homicide or murder may be allowed.

  4. Civil Aspect

    • Double jeopardy pertains to criminal prosecution. The civil liability aspect can still be pursued through a separate civil action, in certain instances, unless such civil aspect was deemed included and resolved in the criminal proceeding.

  5. Revocation of Probation

    • Revoking probation does not constitute double jeopardy because probation is not a second prosecution but a continuation or outcome of the same case, based on a prior conviction.

VII. PROCEDURAL OUTLINE

To invoke double jeopardy under Rule 117:

  1. File a Motion to Quash under Section 3(f).
  2. Present evidence (if needed, or if the court allows) or reference judicial records showing that the accused had already been acquitted, convicted, or the prior case was dismissed without his/her express consent by a competent court upon a valid charge.
  3. Wait for the court’s resolution:
    • If granted, the case is dismissed, and the prosecution is barred from filing the same offense or an included offense again.
    • If denied, the accused must choose between proceeding to trial or seeking an extraordinary remedy (e.g., certiorari) if there is a clear grave abuse of discretion.

VIII. BEST PRACTICES AND STRATEGIES

  1. Examine the prior proceeding thoroughly

    • Confirm the four requisites for double jeopardy: (1) valid indictment, (2) competent court, (3) arraignment and plea, and (4) acquittal/conviction/dismissal without consent.
    • Verify that the prior dismissal was on the merits or was tantamount to an acquittal (e.g., insufficiency of evidence).

  2. Check for identity or inclusion of offenses

    • Use the “same evidence test” and the textual elements test to ascertain whether the second offense is indeed the same, or necessarily included.

  3. Include certified true copies of records

    • Attach certified copies of the information, order of dismissal/acquittal, and any relevant pleadings to support your motion to quash.

  4. Raise double jeopardy as early as possible

    • Ordinarily, it should be raised before plea. Otherwise, it may be deemed waived unless it appears on the face of the record that double jeopardy has attached.

  5. Consider alternative grounds

    • In case the court denies your motion on double jeopardy, remain vigilant for other potential grounds (lack of jurisdiction, violation of right to speedy trial, etc.).

IX. KEY TAKEAWAYS

  1. Double jeopardy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and reinforced by the Rules of Court.
  2. Strict adherence to the requirements is essential: valid charge, valid court, valid plea, and final disposition (acquittal, conviction, dismissal on the merits without accused’s express consent).
  3. Motion to Quash under Rule 117, Section 3(f) is the primary procedural mechanism for invoking the right before trial.
  4. Timing is crucial: raise double jeopardy promptly and comprehensively, supplying all necessary documentation.
  5. No second prosecution for the same or necessarily included offense if jeopardy attached and was validly terminated.
  6. Exceptions exist (void information, lack of jurisdiction, supervening event), so carefully evaluate the procedural history and factual circumstances to confirm if double jeopardy truly bars a second prosecution.

Final Word

The rule against double jeopardy under Rule 117 and Section 21, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is one of the strongest bulwarks of individual liberty in criminal litigation. It prevents the State from subjecting an individual to repeated prosecutions and punishments for the same act or offense, balancing the government’s interest in law enforcement against the fundamental rights of the accused.

In practice, ensuring that a motion to quash on double jeopardy grounds is properly and timely raised can mean the difference between the full protection of this constitutional safeguard or a protracted legal battle. Mastery of the rules, jurisprudential nuances, and procedural technicalities is thus indispensable for every litigator dealing with criminal cases in the Philippines.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login