Double jeopardy?

Double Jeopardy is very much in the public consciousness today.Lawyers and laymen are citing it as a possible way out for the griping junior officers who insist on being held liable for the consequences of their damaging misadventure only under the Articles of War.The line being loosely peddled is that the right of these putchists against double jeopardy will be violated if they will likewise be prosecuted for the crime of coup d’etat under the Revised Penal Code. After making a mockery of the law of the land at Oakwood, the "spontaneous" mutineers are now using the same law to place them beyond its reach and escape with a possibly lighter punishment.

Basically this principle warrants that "no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense"( Section 21, Art.III Constitution). Jeopardy is a legal term referring to the situation or condition of a person when he is put on trial for a crime, after arraignment and plea before a court of competent jurisdiction upon an indictment or information which is sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction. If that trial is terminated either by his acquittal or final conviction or by the dismissal of the charge without his express consent, or by dismissal on the merits due to insufficient evidence, the person can no longer be prosecuted and tried again for the same offense. A second prosecution for the same offense will place him in second or in double jeopardy.

Apparently at this stage, talks about double jeopardy is purely speculative because the first jeopardy has not taken place yet. Neither has it been terminated. But even if there is already a first jeopardy, there can be no second or double jeopardy for the Oakwood five simply because the punishments to be imposed on them under the Articles of War and under the Revised Penal Code are not for the same offense.

The Articles of War are the codes framed for the control, supervision, direction, management and administration of the Nation’s armed forces, particularly the army, navy and air force. The acts punishable under the said articles are those committed in connection with the service of the members of the armed forces.The punishments are imposed more as disciplinary measures for the misconducts committed by the men in uniform.

On the other hand, the acts punishable under the Revised Penal Code are those wrongs which the government deems injurious to the public or the People of the Philippines. The wrongful acts are punished because they are done in violation of those duties which an individual owes to the community.The law has provided punishment as a way for the offender to make satisfaction to the public he has wronged.

The rule on jeopardy generally applies to crimes or all infractions of the criminal law (the Revised Penal Code) or an ordinance; on the breach and violation of the public right and of duties due to the whole community.In this case, when the Oakwood rebels are charged with and tried for the crime of coup d’etat before the civilian court, jeopardy may have set in.They will be placed in second or double jeopardy only if this first jeopardy is terminated and they will again be charged and tried in the civilian court for the same crime. But they will not be placed in second or double jeopardy if they are court martialled for their military service connected misdemeanors. To be sure, a law (RA 7055) has already been enacted clarifying this point precisely to distinguish this particular crime committed by men in uniform cognizable by the civilian court, from their misconducts in violation of the articles of war cognizable by the military court, obviously for the purpose of avoiding a second jeopardy.

It’s about time therefore for the wheels of the civilian and military courts to start grinding so that the guilty can be punished. Enough with the useless Congressional probes which are going nowhere.Leave the fact finding aspect to the Commission created for the purpose for a more orderly and unified approach to this crisis.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]