Reason & Concern

by Ronquillo C. Tolentino

Double Jeopardy

The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration of Lauro Vizconde seeking a reversal of the acquittal of Hubert Webb, and others. Through the high tribunal’s spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez, he stressed that the junking of the motion for reconsideration were due to lack of merit and in consonance with the double jeopardy principle.

When the motion for reconsideration was filed by Vizconde’s lawyers, the first impression of lawyers and even law students would be that the high tribunal shall eventually deny the motion con-sidering double jeopardy.

While I no longer teach law subjects after obtaining an exemption from the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) as required for members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) under Bar Matter No. 850 under Rule 7 (Exemption) of incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least 10 years in accredited law schools, I still manage to accept invitations to deliver lectures in some academic communities in Aklan.

I remember that the Northwestern Visayan Colleges through its Political Science Club conducted a Political Science Seminar on September 17, 2010 at the NVC Alumni Hall. I was requested to deliver a lecture on the Constitution of the Philippines’ Declaration of Principles and State Policies (Art. II) and the Bill of Rights (Art. III). I had occasion to briefly emphasize Sec. 21, Art. III of the Constitution on double jeopardy.

The Supreme Court in a very early case of Julia vs. Sotto (2 Phil. 247) succinctly stated that "without the safeguard this article establishes in favor of the accused, his fortune, safety, and peace of mind would be entirely at the mercy of the complaining witness, who might repeat his accusation as often as dismissed by the Court of whenever he might see fit, subject to no other limitation or restriction than his own will and pleasure. The accused would never be free from the cruel and constant menace of the never ending charge, which the malice of the complaining witness might hold indefinitely suspended over his head, were it not that the judiciary is exclusively empowered to authorize, by an express order to that effect, the repetition of a complaint or information once dismissed in the cases in which the law requires that this be done. Such is, in our opinion, the fundamental reason of the article of the law to which we refer."

Law students may still remember the legal maxim "nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa" (no man shall be twice vexed for one and the some cause).

Sec. 21, Art. III of the Constitution of the Philippines states that "no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense."

Double jeopardy, of course, applies and is addressed exclusively to criminal offenses.　 As explained in a note which I had taken from a constitutional law expert whose name has now escaped my memory. Double jeopardy "is a right available to avoid a second party involving the same offense."It must be noticed that the protection of the constitutional inhibition is against a second jeopardy for the same offense, the only exception being, that "if an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for same act."　 The phrase same offense is construed to mean, not only that the second offense charged is exactly the same as the one alleged in the first information, but also that the first and second offense are identical. There is identity between the two offenses when the evidence to support a victim for one offense would be sufficient to warrant a conviction for the other. This is called the "same evidence test." Under the Rules of Court, there is identity between the two offenses, not only when the second offense is exactly the same as the first, but also when the second offense is an attempt to commit the first, or a frustration thereof, or when it necessarily includes in the offense charged in the first information."

Notes : ‘Strange weather’ – Pagasa -Philippine Daily Inquirer January 18, 2011 headline. In a world of climate change, it’s nothing new really!　Last October 2010, a friend sent me a text message, thus " Melbourne had the hottest night in 108 years. In Texas,hills crumble burying 70 homes to 15 feet deep crevices. Peru, Spain and Portugal had worst flooding in 50 years. Iceland volcanic eruption grounding 12,500 international flights. 30 meters deep sinkhole sucked a whole building in Guatemala City. All in 2010 alone. Scientists claim that we have only a decade left. Al Gore said : "Clear manifestation of global warming." /MP