Merencillo v People | 521 scra 31



Facts: Juanito Merencillo was charged of violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019 and Direct bribery. Petitioner demanded from private complainant Ma. Angeles Ramasola Cesar P20,000.00 in exchange for the approval of the Certificate Authorizing Registration (CAR). Due to the repeated demand of the petitioner and delaying the release of CAR, private complainant seek the help of the authorities. As a result, petitioner was caught in the entrapment instituted by the police. After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty as charged. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Sandiganbayan which was denied affirming the RTC decision. Hence, this petition for review of certiorari, contending that he was twice in jeopardy when he was prosecuted for violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019 and for direct bribery.

Issue: WON the petitioner was placed in double jeopardy.

Holding: No. Section 3(b) of RA 3019 begins with the following statement: Sec.3 In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following acts shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared unlawful: XXX XXX
        One may therefore be charged with violation of RA 3019 in addition to a felony under the RPC for the same delictual act, that is, either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with a felony under the RPC. There is no double jeopardy if a person is charged simultaneously of successively for violation of the Sec.3 of RA 3019 and the RPC. The rule against double jeopardy prohibits twice placing a person in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. The test is whether one offense is identical with the other or is an attempt to commit it or a frustration thereof; or whether one offense necessarily includes or os necessarily included in the other, as provided in Sec.7 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. An offense charged necessarily includes that which is proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint, constitute the latter; and an offense charged is necessarily included in an offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter.
      A comparison of the elements of the crime of direct bribery defined and punished under RPC and those violation of Sec.3 (b) of RA 3019 shows that there is neither identity nor necessary inclusion between the two offenses although the two charges against the petitioner stemmed from the same transaction, the same act gave rise to two separate and distinct offense.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50 o.g. 5880]

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.Several voters were omitted in the list.Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita? HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se . The omission or failure to include a voter’s...
Read more

US v. Serapio [23 P 584]

FACTS: Defendant was charged with the crime of libel. Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arraigned. Upon arraignment the defendant, by his attorneys, presented the following demurrer:I. The facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a crime. II. It appears from the allegation in the complaint that if there were a crime it has prescribed. With reference to the second ground, counsel for the defense maintains that the crime has prescribed under the provisions of the laws in force in the Islands and supports such conclusion by asserting that in the absence of a definite provision in Act No. 277 of the Philippine Commission, which fixes the time during which the penal action arising from the crime of libel may be exercised, the time which article 131 of the Penal Code fixes for the prescription of the crimes of calumny and insults is strictly applicable. Against this contention of the defense, the Attorney-General and the private prosecutor maint...
Read more

People v Macatanda [109 S 35]

FACTS: Charged with and convicted on a plea of guilty, in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch IV in Iligan City, for the crime of cattle rustling, Saglala Macatanda. From the judgment of conviction, Saglala Macatanda (hereinafter referred to as appellant) appealed direct to this Court. The Solicitor General comes up with a reply that Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to penalties prescribed by special laws. He considers P.D. 533, otherwise known as "Anti- Cattle Rustling Law of 1974" as a special law, and in accordance with existing rulings, 8 the penalty should not be governed by the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: Whether the contention of the Solicitor-General is valid. RULING: The court do not agree with the Solicitor General that P.D. 533 is a special law, entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribe...
Read more