Article III, Section 21

Right against Double Jeopardy

(1557) PEOPLE v. JUGUETA

G.R. No. 202124, April 05, 2016
Peralta, J.

POINT OF THE CASE:

Reinvestigation would not subject accused to double jeopardy because the same only attaches if
the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy has attached before the second; (2) the first
jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first.
In turn, a first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c)
after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted
or convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

FACTS:
Jugueta, was charged with Double Murder and Multiple Attempted Murder for the attack on the
family of Norberto Divina which caused the death of the victim’s daughter, Mary Grace and Claudine.
In Norberto’s testimony, he positively identified that Jugueta was accompanied by Estores and
San Miguel who were originally included in the second information. However, after reinvestigation, the
prosecutor did not find enough probable cause to indict and dismissed the informations agains the two
prior arraignment.
Jugueta was the only one tried and found guilty for the two informations which sentenced him to
reclusion perpetua. Hence, the instant petition.

ISSUE: WON the RTC erred in convicting the accused with Double Murder and Multiple Attempted
Murder.

RULING:
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Double Murder to 2 counts of Murder and from
Multiple Attempted Murder to 4 counts of Attempted Murder.
The SC explained that the act of the accused cannot be considered as a complex crime but that
which is distinct from one another as held in People v. Nelmida, "each act by each gunman pulling the
trigger of their respective firearms, aiming each particular moment at different persons constitute distinct
and individual acts which cannot give rise to a complex crime."
The SC further instructed the Prosecutor General for the reinvestigation on the possible criminal
liability of Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel regarding this case. It explained that such reinvestigation
would not subject Estores and San Miguel to double jeopardy because the same only attaches if the
following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy has attached before the second; (2) the first jeopardy
has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. In turn, a first
jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d)
when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the
case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
In this case, the case against Estores and San Miguel was dismissed before they were arraigned.
Thus, there can be no double jeopardy to speak of.