Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 549 views

    Merencillo V People

    Uploaded by

    MeAnn Tumbaga
    Juanito Merencillo was charged with violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019 and direct bribery for demanding PHP 20,000 from a private complainant in exchange for approving a Certificate Authorizing Registration. The RTC found him guilty as charged. He appealed claiming double jeopardy. The Sandiganbayan denied the appeal, affirming the RTC decision. The Supreme Court held that there was no double jeopardy because violation of RA 3019 and direct bribery under the RPC are separate offenses, even if they stem from the same act. While the charges arose from one transaction, the elements of each crime are distinct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Merencillo V People

    Uploaded by

    MeAnn Tumbaga
    549 views1 page
    Juanito Merencillo was charged with violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019 and direct bribery for demanding PHP 20,000 from a private complainant in exchange for approving a Certificate Authorizing Registration. The RTC found him guilty as charged. He appealed claiming double jeopardy. The Sandiganbayan denied the appeal, affirming the RTC decision. The Supreme Court held that there was no double jeopardy because violation of RA 3019 and direct bribery under the RPC are separate offenses, even if they stem from the same act. While the charges arose from one transaction, the elements of each crime are distinct.

    Original Description:

    Merencillo v People

    Original Title

    Merencillo v People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Juanito Merencillo was charged with violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019 and direct bribery for demanding PHP 20,000 from a private complainant in exchange for approving a Certificate Authorizing Registration. The RTC found him guilty as charged. He appealed claiming double jeopardy. The Sandiganbayan denied the appeal, affirming the RTC decision. The Supreme Court held that there was no double jeopardy because violation of RA 3019 and direct bribery under the RPC are separate offenses, even if they stem from the same act. While the charges arose from one transaction, the elements of each crime are distinct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    549 views1 page

    Merencillo V People

    Uploaded by

    MeAnn Tumbaga
    Juanito Merencillo was charged with violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019 and direct bribery for demanding PHP 20,000 from a private complainant in exchange for approving a Certificate Authorizing Registration. The RTC found him guilty as charged. He appealed claiming double jeopardy. The Sandiganbayan denied the appeal, affirming the RTC decision. The Supreme Court held that there was no double jeopardy because violation of RA 3019 and direct bribery under the RPC are separate offenses, even if they stem from the same act. While the charges arose from one transaction, the elements of each crime are distinct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Merencillo v People | 521 scra 31

    March 02, 2013

    Facts: Juanito Merencillo was charged of violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019 and Direct
    bribery. Petitioner demanded from private complainant Ma. Angeles Ramasola Cesar
    P20,000.00 in exchange for the approval of the Certificate Authorizing Registration
    (CAR). Due to the repeated demand of the petitioner and delaying the release of CAR,
    private complainant seek the help of the authorities. As a result, petitioner was caught in
    the entrapment instituted by the police. After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty as
    charged. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Sandiganbayan which was denied
    affirming the RTC decision. Hence, this petition for review of certiorari, contending that
    he was twice in jeopardy when he was prosecuted for violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019
    and for direct bribery.

    Issue: WON the petitioner was placed in double jeopardy.

    Holding: No. Section 3(b) of RA 3019 begins with the following statement: Sec.3 In
    addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
    following acts shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
    declared unlawful: XXX XXX
    One may therefore be charged with violation of RA 3019 in addition to a felony
    under the RPC for the same delictual act, that is, either concurrently or subsequent to
    being charged with a felony under the RPC. There is no double jeopardy if a person is
    charged simultaneously of successively for violation of the Sec.3 of RA 3019 and the
    RPC. The rule against double jeopardy prohibits twice placing a person in jeopardy of
    punishment for the same offense. The test is whether one offense is identical with the
    other or is an attempt to commit it or a frustration thereof; or whether one offense
    necessarily includes or os necessarily included in the other, as provided in Sec.7 of
    Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. An offense charged necessarily includes that which is
    proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in
    the complaint, constitute the latter; and an offense charged is necessarily included in an
    offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of
    those constituting the latter.
    A comparison of the elements of the crime of direct bribery defined and punished
    under RPC and those violation of Sec.3 (b) of RA 3019 shows that there is neither
    identity nor necessary inclusion between the two offenses although the two charges
    against the petitioner stemmed from the same transaction, the same act gave rise to
    two separate and distinct offense.

    You might also like