People vs Elkanish

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 sion n 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 jeopardy jeopardy 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 eople e vs. vs. l8a l8ani nish sh.. In this this case case,, an infor informa mati tion on of illegal 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 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 mentio ioned 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.