Saturday, December 03, 2011

Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Jonathan Honrales/People of the Philippines and Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Jonathan Honrales, G.R. No. 182651/G.R. No. 182657. August 25, 2010.

Double jeopardy; defined. When an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information. 

Double jeopardy; requisites. Thus, double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. A first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. 

Double jeopardy; requisites. In the instant case, the Metropolitan Trial Court took cognizance of the Information for reckless imprudence resulting in parricide while the criminal case for parricide was still pending before the Regional Trial Court. There is no double jeopardy in the instant case. In Dioquino v. Cruz, Jr., the Supreme Court held that once jurisdiction is acquired by the court in which the Information is filed, it is there retained. Therefore, as the offense of reckless imprudence resulting in parricide was included in the charge for intentional parricide pending before the Regional Trial Court, the Metropolitan Trial Court clearly had no jurisdiction over the criminal case filed before it, the Regional Trial Court having retained jurisdiction over the offense to the exclusion of all other courts. The requisite that the judgment be rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is therefore absent. A decision rendered without jurisdiction is not a decision in contemplation of law and can never become executory. Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Jonathan Honrales/People of the Philippines and Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Jonathan Honrales, G.R. No. 182651/G.R. No. 182657. August 25, 2010.

Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl

0 comments: on "Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Jonathan Honrales/People of the Philippines and Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Jonathan Honrales, G.R. No. 182651/G.R. No. 182657. August 25, 2010."

Post a Comment