The document discusses several topics related to civil liberties and criminal law in the Philippines. It addresses the right against political imprisonment, involuntary servitude, and cruel punishment. It also discusses the right against imprisonment for debt or poll taxes. Several court cases are summarized, including ones related to double jeopardy and what constitutes the same offense. Lozano v. Martinez establishes that BP 22 punishes the act of issuing worthless checks, not nonpayment of debt. Perez v. CA and Lamera v. CA discuss what constitutes the same offense for double jeopardy. People v. Relova addresses whether the same act can be prosecuted under two different laws. Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro establishes that negligent acts resulting in
The document discusses several topics related to civil liberties and criminal law in the Philippines. It addresses the right against political imprisonment, involuntary servitude, and cruel punishment. It also discusses the right against imprisonment for debt or poll taxes. Several court cases are summarized, including ones related to double jeopardy and what constitutes the same offense. Lozano v. Martinez establishes that BP 22 punishes the act of issuing worthless checks, not nonpayment of debt. Perez v. CA and Lamera v. CA discuss what constitutes the same offense for double jeopardy. People v. Relova addresses whether the same act can be prosecuted under two different laws. Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro establishes that negligent acts resulting in
Original Description:
non imprisonment for non payment of poll tax ;double jeopardy
The document discusses several topics related to civil liberties and criminal law in the Philippines. It addresses the right against political imprisonment, involuntary servitude, and cruel punishment. It also discusses the right against imprisonment for debt or poll taxes. Several court cases are summarized, including ones related to double jeopardy and what constitutes the same offense. Lozano v. Martinez establishes that BP 22 punishes the act of issuing worthless checks, not nonpayment of debt. Perez v. CA and Lamera v. CA discuss what constitutes the same offense for double jeopardy. People v. Relova addresses whether the same act can be prosecuted under two different laws. Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro establishes that negligent acts resulting in
The document discusses several topics related to civil liberties and criminal law in the Philippines. It addresses the right against political imprisonment, involuntary servitude, and cruel punishment. It also discusses the right against imprisonment for debt or poll taxes. Several court cases are summarized, including ones related to double jeopardy and what constitutes the same offense. Lozano v. Martinez establishes that BP 22 punishes the act of issuing worthless checks, not nonpayment of debt. Perez v. CA and Lamera v. CA discuss what constitutes the same offense for double jeopardy. People v. Relova addresses whether the same act can be prosecuted under two different laws. Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro establishes that negligent acts resulting in
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 5
1.
Freedom from political beliefs (political prisoner)
Sec 18. No person shall be liable solely on account of his political beliefs or aspirations 2. Freedom against involuntary servitude (relate to Art II, Sec 4) Sec 19. No involuntary servitude, in any form shall exist, except as payment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted Article II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service. s. Right against cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment Sec 20. t. Right against imprisonment for non-payment of debt or poll tax i. debt 1. Lozano v Martinez Facts A motion to quash the charge against the petitioners for violation of the BP 22 was made, contending that the statute is unconstitutional for violating the right against non imprisonment of debt. Such motion was denied by the RTC. The petitioners thus elevate the case to the Supreme Court for relief Issue: WON BP 22 violates the constitutional right against imprisonment for nonpayment of debt Held: No. What BP 22 punishes is not the nonpayment of obligation but the act of making or issuing worthless checks and putting them in circulation. The enactment of BP 22 is a declaration by the legislature that, as a matter of public policy, the making and issuance of a worthless check is deemed public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal sanctions.
ii. Poll tax definition - taxes that are imposed on people residing in a specified territory whether citizens or not without regard to their properties or their earnings DOUBLE JEOPARDY No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punishable under an ordinance or a law, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same offense i. two kinds 1. same offense Perez v ca Facts A criminal complaint was filed by Yolanda Mendoza against Eleuterio Perez for Consented Abduction however he was acquitted. Subsequent to Perez's acquittal, Mendoza filed another criminal complaint against Perez this time for Qualified Seduction. Perez filed a motion to quash invoking double jeopardy. Issue Whether the filing of an information for Qualified Seduction against Perez after he was acquitted for Consented Abduction constitutes double jeopardy. Held The rule on double jeopardy is that, "No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. The term same offense means identical offense or any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof or any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information. Although it is true that the two offenses for which Perez was charged arose from the same facts, this does not preclude the filing of another information against him if from those facts, two distinct offenses, each requiring different elements, arose. Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction are not identical offenses as would make applicable the rule on double jeopardy. Moreover, the very nature of these two offenses would negate any identity between them
Note There are similar elements between Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction, namely: (1) that the offended party is a virgin, and, (2) that she must be over twelve (12) and under eighteen (18) years of age. However, two elements differentiate the two crimes. Consented Abduction, in addition to the two common elements, requires that: (1) the taking away of the offended party must be with her consent, after solicitation or cajolery from the offender, and, (2) the taking away of the offended party must be with lewd designs. On the other hand, an information for Qualified Seduction also requires that: (1) the crime be committed by abuse of authority, confidence or relationship, and, (2) the offender has sexual intercourse with the woman. LAMERA V CA Facts Petitioner, while driving an owner type jeep allegedly "hit and bumped" a tricycle then driven by Ernesto Reyes resulting in damage to the tricycle and injuries to Ernesto Reyes and Paulino Gonzal. As a consequence thereof two information were filed against him, reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple physical injuries under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code and violation of paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the Revised Penal Code on Abandonment of one's victim. He was convicted with the crime of abandonment of ones victim. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari contending that the two information were based on the same act, the vehicular collision and thus would constitute double jeopardy Issue whether or not prosecution for negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code is a bar to prosecution for abandonment under Article 275 of the same Code Held No. Said articles penalize different and distinct offenses. The protection against double jeopardy is only for the same offense. A simple act may be an offense against two different provisions of law and if one provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under one does not bar prosecution under the other. Since the informations were for separate offenses the first against a person and the second against public peace and order one cannot be pleaded as a bar to the other under the rule on double jeopardy 2. same act PEOPLE V RELOVA Facts In this petition for certiorari and mandamus, People of the Philippines seeks to set aside the orders of Respondent Judge Hon. Relova quashing an information for theft filed against Mr. Opulencia on the ground of double jeopardy and denying the petitioners motion for reconsideration.. On Feb.1 1975, Batangas police together with personnel of Batangas Electric Light System, equipped with a search warrant issued by a city judge of Batangas tosearch and examine the premises of the Opulencia Carpena Ice Plant owned by one Manuel Opulencia. They discovered electric wiring devices have been installed without authority from the city government and architecturally concealed inside the walls of the building. Said devices are designed purposely to lower or decrease the readings of electric current consumption in the plants electric meter. The case was dismissed on the ground of prescription for the complaint was filed nine months prior to discovery when it should be 2months prior to discovery that the act being a light felony and prescribed the right to file in court. On Nov 24, 1975, another case wasfiled against Mr. Opulencia by the Assistant City Fiscal of Batangas for a violation of a Batangas Ordinance regarding unauthorized electrical installations with resulting damage and prejudice to City of Batangas in the amount of P41,062.16. Before arraignment, Opulencia filed a motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy. The Assistantfiscals claim is that it is not double jeopardy because the first offense charged against the accused was unauthorized installation of electrical devices without the approval and necessary authority from the City Government which was punishable by an ordinance, where in the case was dismissed, as opposed to the second offense which is theft of electricity which is punishable by the Revised Penal Code making it a different crime charged against the 1st complaint against Mr.Opulencia. Issue Whether or Not the accused Mr. Opulencia can invoke double jeopardy as defense to the second offense charged against him by theassistant fiscal of Batangas on the ground of theft of electricity punishable by a statute against the Revised Penal Code. ii. requisites IVLER V MODESTO-SAN PEDRO Facts Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler (petitioner) was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City (MeTC), with two separate offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline L. Ponce (respondent Ponce); and (2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property for the death of respondent Ponces husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponces vehicle. On 2004, petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge on the first delict and was meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction, petitioner moved to quash the Information for the second delict for placing him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of reckless imprudence.
The MeTC refused quashal, finding no identity of offenses in the two cases. Issue Whether petitioners constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further proceedings in Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property for the death of respondent Ponces husband. Held Yes. On the issue on double jeopardy, the two charges were prosecuted by the court under the provision of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code that penalizes quasi-offenses such as negligence. What this provision contemplates in quasi-offenses of criminal negligence is punishing the act of negligence that if intentionally done will constitute a criminal offense. Thus, the law punishes the negligent act and not the result thereof. It takes into account the gravity of the offenses in determining the penalty but not to qualify the substance of the offense. It treats a negligent act as single whether the injurious result affects one or several persons. The offense of criminal negligence remains as one and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions. The contention of the lower court to invoke Article 48 where light offenses such as slight physical injuries cannot be complexed with grave or less grave felony such as homicide that the court is compelled to separate both charges is untenable in this case. The principle of prosecuting quasi offenses remain intact in the case thus the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for 2 offenses of similar charges on reckless imprudence. His prosecution on the first offense thus bars another prosecution for the second offense by virtue of the principle of double jeopardy. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court. NAVALLO V SANDIGANBAYAN Facts