#SUBSUME IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY CODE#
#SUBSUME IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY TRIAL#
#SUBSUME IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY SERIES#

No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Section 21 of Article III of the Constitution: This is likewise a protection provided under the 1987 Philippine Constitution: Thus, any action based on the previous case or on the facts that transpired in the previous case would bar anyone from prosecuting the same accused for another offense. Thus, one cannot file anymore a complaint as it would result in Double Jeopardy. Note that if there was an adjudication on the merits that results in dismissal/acquittal, it comes to effect that it was dismissed with prejudice.

This comes to the same effect as to adjudication on the merits, while it may not be dismissable on the ground of double jeopardy, it is dismissable on violation of speedy trial.

#SUBSUME IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY TRIAL#

Unreasonable delay in the proceedings: resulting in violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial.Hence, double jeopardy will apply even with consent or initiated by the accused. Insufficiency of evidence, such as demurrer to evidence.Įffect if granted: As if there was a dismissal on the merits and this results in acquittal.Exception: Case where dismissal is with express consent or initiated by the accused and subsequent action will result in double jeopardy:.it was dismissed without his express consent.the accused was either acquitted or convicted.Ancient civilizations relied on the blood feud to provide justice when one person killed another -the relatives of a slain person had a duty to avenge the death.Double Jeopardy presupposes that in a previous trial the case has attached a jeopardy and such was terminated because:

#SUBSUME IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY SERIES#

While the blood feud manifested a rough 'eye-for-an-eye' retributive justice, it could, in theory, lead to an endless series of killings as each death was avenged. The Greek playwright Aeschylus dramatized a cycle of blood feud revenge in The Oresteian Trilogy, which ended with the Greek gods deciding that a trial is a better way to achieve justice. Part of the reason to replace the blood feud with a trial is to permit the cycle of revenge to end, to provide a final outcome to a dispute, and to create repose in the litigants.

But to protect the finality of outcomes, there must exist a principle forbidding a retrial of the same case or the same issue.Ī double jeopardy principle has been part of Western legal systems for thousands of years.

#SUBSUME IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY CODE#

The Code of Hammurabi, for example, in the nineteenth century B.C.E. sought to prohibit judges from changing judgments (law 15). The Greek philosopher Demosthenes said in 355 B.C.E. that the 'laws forbid the same man to be tried twice on the same issue.' In the Roman Republic,Īn acquittal could not be appealed. 391 interpreted a passage from the Old Testament to mean that not even God judges twice for the same act. The English common law principle that there should be one punishment for one crime first manifested itself during the confrontation between King Henry II and St. Henry, the great-grandson of William the Conqueror, enacted a law that required punishment in the king's court of clergy who had already been punished in the church courts. In opposing this law, Becket relied on St. Jerome's principle forbidding more than one judgment for the same act. After four of Henry's knights killed Becket, the pope condemned Henry's provisions permitting the double punishment of clergy. Henry relented and today, over eight hundred years later, courts still condemn double punishment. The Fifth Amendment provides: 'nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.' The evolution of double jeopardy law from the twelfth century to today cannot be easily summarized, but the great English commentator Sir William Blackstone could state confidently in 1765 that there was a 'universal maxim of the common law of England, that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offence.' This 'universal maxim' led directly to the Fifth Amendment double jeopardy clause, which is strikingly similar to Blackstone's statement of the common law maxim.

Subsume in double jeopardy