Clarificatory points from Dad re double jeopardy:

• There is double jeopardy only for the same offense, not for the same act.
• It is possible that the Accused did only one act, but his act is punishable by two
laws. If each law requires proof
proof of an additional fact which the other does not, not,
there is no double jeopardy. If the accused is acquitted under one law, he can
still be prosecuted or convicted under the other law.
• !ample of no double jeopardy: "eople vs. Tinamisan #$. %. &o. '()*+,-an.
/, /01. 2irst crime (( ille3al fishin3 usin3 e!plosives #when you fish usin3
e!plosi
e!plosives1
ves144 5econd
5econd crime
crime (( ille3a
ille3all posses
possessio
sionn of e!plosi
e!plosives
ves #no permit
permit to
possess e!plosives1. &ote that these two crimes involved only one act, one set
of facts.
facts. 6ut 5C said there was no double jeopardyjeopardy because
because the two offenses
offenses
were of different nature.
• Test:
Te st: Do the offenses char3ed in the two Informations
Informations involve the same law7
• &ote, however, that the rule on double jeopardy has been rela!ed by the 5C in
the
the case
case of "eopl
eoplee vs.
vs. l8a
l8ani
nish
sh.. In this
this case
case,, an infor
informa
mati on of illegal
tion
possession of blastin3 caps was declared to be a bar to a second information
for illegal importation  of the same blastin3 caps. caps. 5upposedly
5upposedly,, 9posses
9possession
sion
and 9importation are two different offenses, but the 5C said there was double
jeopardy
jeopardy.. ;ere was the 5C<s justifijustificatio
cation:
n: =hen one imports
imports somethin3 into
the "hilipp
"hilippines
ines,, he necess
necessari
arily
ly has the possessi
possessionon of it. The importer is a
possessor.
possessor. ;e has only one objective > that is, to sell or dispose for for profit the
thin3 he imported.
• ?i8a
?i8a,, your
your prof
prof mi3h
mi3htt as8
as8 some
someth thin3
in3 that
that was
was ment
mentioioned
ned in the l8a
l8anis
nish
h
decision. In the l8anish case, it was mentioned in in passin3 that the scenario is
different
different when the offenses involved are #1 smo8in3 smo8in3 opium and #1 possession
possession
of a pipe #for opium1. 5mo8in3 of opium is an end in itself4 while possession of 
pipe may not necessarily end in smo8in3 opium usin3 a pipe. =hen you possess
pipe, you may either sell it or 8eep the pipe it as part of an equipment for
runnin3 an opium den. In contrast, importation and possession of of blastin3 caps
caps
has only one aim (> that is, to sell or dispose for profit the blastin3 caps that
were imported.
 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSEPH ELKANISH

#$.%. &o. '(@@@, 5eptember @, /01

2acts:

=hile 5.5. =ashin3ton ?ail was anchored in ?anila, @0 lar3e bo!es of blastin3 caps
were found and seiBed by the authorities. 5aid blastin3 caps #or e!plosives1 were
traced to the ownership of l8anish4 hence, two separate informations were filed
a3ainst him on the same date, one char3in3 him with ille3al importation  of the
articles #e!plosives1 under the %evised Administrative Code, and the other, ille3al
 possession of the same articles under a different law.

;e was arrai3ned and entered the plea of not 3uilty on the information for ille3al
possession. As for the ille3al importation case, l8anish moved to quash the
information on the 3rounds that the prosecution for importation is barred by the
prosecution for ille3al possession #in other words, double jeopardy1.

The C2I -ud3e dismissed the information for ille3al possession of e!plosives on the
3round of double jeopardy.

Issue: =as the -ud3e correct in dismissin3 the information for ille3al possession of 
e!plosives on the 3round of double jeopardy7

;eld: es, the jud3e was correct4 there was double jeopardy.

The importation and possession of blastin3 caps are juridically identical. There can
hardly be importation without possession. =hen one brin3s somethin3 or causes
somethin3 to be brou3ht into the country, he necessarily has the possession of it. The
importer is a possessor in the le3al sense.

=hen a person has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents
included in it, he can not be a second time tried for one of those incidents without
bein3 twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.

The protection a3ainst bein3 twice put in jeopardy for the same offense is not only a
le3islative creation but secured by the Constitution

Importation and possession represent only one criminal intent, one volition. The
desi3n was to sell or dispose of the blastin3 caps for profit, the importation and
possession bein3 no more than means to accomplish that purpose.