Attachment of jeopardy ----People v.

Ylagan
physical injuries A defendant is in legal jeopardy when he was put to trial in the following conditions: a. in a court of competent jurisdiction b. upon a valid complaint or information c. after he has been arraigned d. after he has pleaded to the information

without the consent of the accused does not mean over the objection of the accused or against the will of the accused ; mere silence or failure to object

People v. Balisacan
homicide Existence of a plea is an essential requisite in order that the accused may be in jeopardy. In this case, he first entered a plea of guilty and subsequently, he was ed to testify on the mitigating circumstances and he said he acted in self defense: this had the effect of vacating his plea of guilty; court should have required a new plea.

Cudia v. CA
requisites in order to successfully invoke the defense of double jeopardy/ substantiate an claim of jeopardy

a. a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second b. first jeopardy must have been validly terminated c. second jeopardy must be for the same offense or the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information, or is an attempt to commit of frustration thereof. Jeopardy does not attach where a defendant pleads guilty to a defective indictment that is voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution

----- Termination of jeopardy ----1. Bustamante v. Maceren reopening of a case No re-opening of a case may be ordered of a criminal case after accused has started serving his sentence; a judgment in a criminal case becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served or the defendant ha waived in writing his appeal; withdrawal of plea of guilty does not constitute waiver of defense of double jeopardy timely invoked.

People v. Obsania
rape In order that the protection against double jeopardy may inure in favor of an accused, the following requisites must have obtained in the original prosecution/ double jeopardy attaches when: a. a valid complaint or information b. a competent court c. defendant had pleaded to the charge d. defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his consent dismissal with express consent of the defendant constitutes waiver

Rivera v. People
transportation of marijuana VERBAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL which was not reduced into writing may be set aside by the judge and enter a new one duly signed by him, reinstating the case

Cuison v. CA
double homicide The promulgation of only one part of the decision i.e. liability for civil indemnity, is NOT A BAR, to the subsequent promulgation of the other part, the imposition of the criminal accountability doctrine on double jeopardy same as in Cudia and Obsania cases.

People v. Velasco
homicide and frustrated homicide Requisites to successfully invoke double jeopardy (refer to Obsania); Where an acquittal is concerned, the rules do not distinguish whether it occurs at the level of the trial court or an appeal on a judgment of conviction. This firmly establishes the finality-of-acquittal rule; An acquittal is final and unappealable ON THE GROUND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY whether it happens at the trial court of before the Court of Appeals; doctrine that double jeopardy may not be invoked after trial may apply only when the Court finds that the criminal trial was a sham because the prosecution representing the sovereign people in the criminal case was denied due process.

Salcedo v. Mendoza
homicide through reckless imprudence General rule: dismissal of criminal case upon motion or with express consent of accused will not be a bar to the subsequent prosecution of the accused for the same offense. EXCEPTION TO THE RULE: when dismissal is grounded upon the right of the accused to a speedy trial. This amounts to a judgment of acquittal on the merits which bars the subsequent prosecution of accused for the same offense

Oriente v. People
homicide; lead pipe It is well settled that when an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy; Courts have the inherent power to amend their decisions to make them conformable to law and justice; change in penalty by the RTC did not involve the consideration of new evidence but a mere correction

People v. Cajigal
homicide to murder

The change of the offense charged from homicide to murder is merely a formal amendment and not a substantial amendment or a substitution;