Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2002 Bar
No IX. A Tamaraw FX driven by Asiong Cascasero, who was
drunk, sideswiped a pedestrian along EDSA in Makati City,
resulting in physical injuries to the latter. The public
prosecutor filed two separate informations against Cascasero,
the first for reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries
under the Revised Penal Code, and the second for violation of
an ordinance of Makati City prohibiting and penalizing driving
under the influence of liquor. Cascasero was arraigned, tried
and convicted for reckless imprudence resulting in physical
injuries under the Revised Penal Code. With regard to the
second case (i.e., violation of the city ordinance), upon being
arraigned, he filed a motion to quash the information invoking
his right against double jeopardy. He contended that, under
Art. III, Section 21 of the Constitution, if an act is punished by
a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either
shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act
He argued that the two criminal charges against him
stemmed from the same act of driving allegedly under the
influence of liquor which caused the accident. Was there
double jeopardy? Explain your answer (5%)
FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, there is double jeopardy. Under the second sentence of
Article III, Section 21 of the Constitution, if an act is punished
by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under
either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the
same act. In this case, the same act is involved in the two
cases. The reckless imprudence which resulted in physical
injuries arose from the same act of driving under the influence
of liquor. In Yap v. Lutero, G.R. No. L-12669, April 30, 1959, the
Supreme Court held that an accused who was acquitted of
driving recklessly in violation of an ordinance could not be
prosecuted for damage to property through reckless
imprudence because the two charges were based on the
same act. In People v, Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987), it was
held that when there is identity in the act punished by a law
and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
bar prosecution under the other.