Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Condrada v. People

    Uploaded by

    Trinca Diploma
    173 views2 pages
    This case discusses whether reinstating a criminal case against the petitioner places him in double jeopardy. The court held that it does not. The key facts are: - The petitioner's rape case was temporarily dismissed on May 31, 1999 at his request after several postponements by the prosecution. - On June 22, 1999, the prosecution filed to reinstate the case, providing valid reasons for prior postponements. - The petitioner argued reinstatement would subject him to double jeopardy. - The court found the initial dismissal was temporary, not permanent, so did not terminate jeopardy. Reinstatement before the dismissal became final did not place the petitioner in double jeopardy.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case discusses whether reinstating a criminal case against the petitioner places him in double jeopardy. The court held that it does not. The key facts are: - The petitioner's rape case was temporarily dismissed on May 31, 1999 at his request after several postponements by the prosecution. - On June 22, 1999, the prosecution filed to reinstate the case, providing valid reasons for prior postponements. - The petitioner argued reinstatement would subject him to double jeopardy. - The court found the initial dismissal was temporary, not permanent, so did not terminate jeopardy. Reinstatement before the dismissal became final did not place the petitioner in double jeopardy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    173 views2 pages

    Condrada v. People

    Uploaded by

    Trinca Diploma
    This case discusses whether reinstating a criminal case against the petitioner places him in double jeopardy. The court held that it does not. The key facts are: - The petitioner's rape case was temporarily dismissed on May 31, 1999 at his request after several postponements by the prosecution. - On June 22, 1999, the prosecution filed to reinstate the case, providing valid reasons for prior postponements. - The petitioner argued reinstatement would subject him to double jeopardy. - The court found the initial dismissal was temporary, not permanent, so did not terminate jeopardy. Reinstatement before the dismissal became final did not place the petitioner in double jeopardy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    1777

    CONDRADA V. PEOPLE
    G.R. No. 141646
    February 28, 2003
    Termination of Jeopardy
    FACTS
    Petitioner was charged with rape. When he was arraigned on February 26, 1999,
    petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. On March 31, 1999, the date set by the
    trial court for the initial hearing, the prosecution moved that the same be postponed due to the
    absence of the complainant and her witnesses. The hearing was reset on April 29, 1999. On the
    said date, the prosecution again moved to postpone the hearing due to the absence of the
    complainant and her witnesses. Petitioner objected to the motion on the ground that his right to
    speedy trial was being violated by such postponements. The trial court granted the prosecutions
    motion and reset the hearing on May 31, 1999. It also directed that the subpoenae to the
    complainant and her witnesses be coursed through the National Bureau of Investigation which
    handled the investigation of the case. During the hearing on May 31, 1999, the prosecution
    requested for another postponement. Petitioner moved for at least a temporary dismissal of the
    case. The prosecution manifested that it would not object to a temporary dismissal. Thus, on the
    same date, the trial court issued an order temporarily dismissing the case.
    On June 22, 1999, the prosecution filed a Motion for Reinstatement and/or Revival of the
    case. Appended to said motion was the affidavit of private complainant that the subpoenae sent
    to her for the trial of the case did not reach her because in the meantime she had transferred her
    residence. The trial court set the hearing on the motion for reinstatement on June 25, 1999.
    Petitioner opposed the motion contending that the revival or reinstatement of the case will place
    him in double jeopardy. On September 29, 1999, the Court issued a resolution reinstating the
    said case and reiterating the issuance of a warrant of arrest for petitioner.
    Petitioner filed the instant petition claiming that the case cannot be revived because the
    dismissal of the case on May 31, 1999 is permanent in character, having been made in
    consideration of his right to speedy trial. The Solicitor General, on the other hand, contends that
    the case was dismissed not because petitioners right to speedy trial has been violated by the
    postponements of the trial on several instances, but because petitioner through counsel moved
    that the case be dismissed at least even temporarily to which the public prosecutor interposed no
    objection. The Solicitor General points out that the prosecution moved for the postponement of
    the trial several times in good faith and for valid reasons. He likewise argues that the revival of
    the case does not place the petitioner twice in jeopardy for the same offense because the
    dismissal of the case on May 31, 1999 was made at petitioners instance.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the reinstatement of Criminal Case No. 10770 places the petitioner in
    double jeopardy.
    HELD: No.
    A permanent dismissal of a criminal case may refer to the termination of the case on the
    merits, resulting in either the conviction or acquittal of the accused; to the dismissal of the case
    due to the prosecutions failure to prosecute; or to the dismissal thereof on the ground of
    Prepared by: Katrina S. Diploma

    1777
    unreasonable delay in the proceedings, in violation of the accuseds right to speedy disposition or
    trial of the case against him. In contrast, a provisional dismissal of a criminal case is a dismissal
    without prejudice to the reinstatement thereof before the order of dismissal becomes final or to
    the subsequent filing of a new information for the offense within the periods allowed under the
    Revised Penal Code or the Revised Rules of Court.
    In the present case, it is clear from the records that the dismissal ordered by the trial court
    on May 31, 1999 was a temporary dismissal of the case, and not a permanent dismissal on the
    ground that the right of the accused to speedy trial had been violated by the delay in the
    prosecution of the said case. The proscription against double jeopardy presupposes that an
    accused has been previously charged with an offense, and the case against him is terminated
    either by his acquittal or conviction, or dismissed in any other manner without his consent. As a
    general rule, the following requisites must be present for double jeopardy to attach: (1) a valid
    indictment, (2) before a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) the arraignment of the accused, (4)
    a valid plea entered by him, and (5) the acquittal or conviction of the accused, or the dismissal or
    termination of the case against him without his express consent. However, there are two
    exceptions to the foregoing rule, and double jeopardy may attach even if the dismissal of the case
    was with the consent of the accused: first, when there is insufficiency of evidence to support the
    charge against him; and second, where there has been an unreasonable delay in the proceedings,
    in violation of the accuseds right to speedy trial.

    Prepared by: Katrina S. Diploma

    You might also like