CARMELO VS PEOPLE

CONRADO CARMELO vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL
G.R. No. L-3580             March 22, 1950

Facts:
          Petitioner Conrado Melo was charged in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, on December 27, 1949, with frustrated homicide, for having allegedly inflicted upon Benjamin Obillo, with a kitchen knife and with intent to kill, several serious wounds on different parts of the body, requiring medical attendance for a period of more than 30 days, and incapacitating him from performing his habitual labor for the same period of time.
On December 29, 1949, at eight o'clock in the morning, the accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged, and at 10:15 in the evening of the same day Benjamin Obillo died from his wounds. Evidence of death was available to the prosecution only on January 3, 1950, and on the following day, January 4, 1950, an amended information was filed charging the accused with consummated homicide. The accused filed a motion to quash the amended information alleging double jeopardy, motion that was denied by the respondent court.

Issue:
          Whether or not the amended motion constitute double jeopardy

Ruling:
          The Supreme Court held that the rule of double jeopardy had a settled meaning in this jurisdiction at the time our Constitution was promulgated. It meant that when a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without the consent of the accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense. This principle is founded upon the law of reason, justice and conscience.
          It must be noticed that the protection of the Constitution inhibition is against a second jeopardy for the same offense, the only exception being, as stated in the same Constitution, 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 the same act." The phrase same offense, under the general rule, has always been construed to mean not only the second offense charged is exactly the same as the one alleged in the first information, but also that the two offenses are identical. There is identity between the two offenses when the evidence to support a conviction for one offense would be sufficient to warrant a conviction for the other. This so called "same-evidence test" which was found to be vague and deficient, was restated by the Rules of Court in a clearer and more accurate form. Under said Rules there is identity between 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 necessary includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information.

          This rule of identity does not apply, however when the second offense was not in existence at the time of the first prosecution, for the simple reason that in such case there is no possibility for the accused, during the first prosecution, to be convicted for an offense that was then inexistent. Thus, where the accused was charged with physical injuries and after conviction the injured person dies, the charge for homicide against the same accused does not put him twice in jeopardy.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. HENEDINO P. EDUARTE, in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 22, Cabagan, Isabela; ELVINO AGGABAO and VILLA SURATOS G.R. No. 88232 February 26, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. HENEDINO P. EDUARTE, in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 22, Cabagan, Isabela; ELVINO AGGABAO and VILLA SURATOS G.R. No. 88232 February 26, 1990 Facts: Alma T. Aggabao filed  with the RTC, an information against private respondents Elvino Aggabao and Villa Suratos for the crime of concubinage. Upon being arraigned, private respondents entered a plea of not guilty. During the trial, private respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.  They argued that concubinage, under Art. 334 of the RPC is punishable with prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, which is equivalent to imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months, well within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, and not of the RTC The prosecution filed an opposition to the motion contending that the RTC has jurisdiction over the crime of concubinage...
Read more

DE PEREZ vs. GARCHITORENA

CARMEN G. DE PEREZ vs. MARIANO GARCHITORENA, and JOSE CASIMIRO G.R. No. L-31703 February 13, 1930 ROMUALDEZ, J.: Facts: The question here raised is confined to the scope and meaning of the institution of heirs made in the will of the late Ana Maria Alcantara already admitted to probate, and whose legal force and effect is not in dispute. The clauses of said will relevant to the points in dispute, between the parties are the ninth, tenth, and eleventh, quoted below: Ninth. Being single and without any forced heir, to show my gratitude to my niece-in-law, Carmen Garchitorena, of age, married to my nephew, Joaquin Perez Alcantara, and living in this same house with me, I institute her as my sole and universal heiress to the remainder of my estate after the payment of my debts and legacies, so that upon my death and after probate of this will, and after the report of the committee on claims and appraisal has been rendered and approved, she will receive from my executrix and...
Read more

J.L.T. AGRO, INC., VS. ANTONIO BALANSAG

J.L.T. AGRO, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, JULIAN L. TEVES VS. ANTONIO BALANSAG AND HILARIA CADAYDAY G.R. No. 141882, March 11, 2005 TINGA, J.: Facts: Don Julian L. Teves contracted two marriages, first with Antonia Baena, and after her death, with Milagros Donio Teves. Don Julian had two children with Antonia, namely: Josefa Teves Escaño and Emilio Teves. He had also four (4) children with Milagros Donio, namely: Maria Evelyn Donio Teves, Jose Catalino Donio Teves, Milagros Reyes Teves and Pedro Reyes Teves. The present controversy involves a parcel of land. When Antonia died, the land was among the properties involved in an action for partition and damages, the second wife of Don Julian, participated as an intervenor. Thereafter, the parties to the case entered into a Compromise Agreement which embodied the partition of all the properties of Don Julian. Paragraph 13 of the Compromise Agreement, at the heart of the present dispute, lays down the effect of the eventual ...
Read more