Amoroso was· charged with treason before a military court martial. He was acquitted.
He was later charged with the same offense before a Regional Trial Court. He asks that the information be quashed on the ground of double jeopardy.
The prosecution objects, contending that for purposes of double jeopardy, the military court martial cannot be considered as a “competent court.”
Should the Regional Trial Court grant Amoroso’s motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy? (2.5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Yes, the Regional Trial Court should grant Amoroso's motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy. Under the Constitution and jurisprudence, a defendant acquitted of a crime by a court martial of competent jurisdiction cannot be tried again for the
Unlock the full Political Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Is a military court martial considered a competent court for purposes of attaching double jeopardy?
A court martial is a court of competent jurisdiction because it derives its authority from the same sovereign state as civil courts.
What is the legal effect of an acquittal of treason by a competent military court martial?
An acquittal by a competent court martial bars subsequent trial for the same offense in a civil court under double jeopardy.
Why does an acquittal by a court martial bar a subsequent prosecution in a Regional Trial Court for the same offense?
Courts martial and civil courts emanate from the same sovereign authority, so trial in one bars prosecution in the other.
What is the proper procedural remedy for an accused facing a second prosecution for an offense after an acquittal by a court martial?
Choices available with full access.
Under Article III, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution, what element is essential for double jeopardy to attach?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Court Martial Jurisdiction
Under Philippine constitutional law and jurisprudence, a military court martial is a legal court of competent jurisdiction created under the law to try military offenses and statutory crimes committed by military personnel. Courts martial derive their judicial power from the national authority of the same sovereign state as regular civil courts. Consequently, when a court martial exercises valid jurisdiction over an accused and a offense, its judicial proceedings, judgments, and acquittals carry full legal weight equal to decisions rendered by regular judicial tribunals.
2. Same Sovereign Authority
Under Article III, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution, the guarantee against double jeopardy protects a person from being prosecuted twice for the same offense by the same sovereign power. Both military courts martial and regular civil courts derive their authority from the single sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines. Because both judicial systems emanate from one sovereign source, an acquittal or conviction in a competent court martial constitutes a first jeopardy that bars any subsequent criminal prosecution for the same offense in a civil court.
3. Motion To Quash
Under the Rules of Court, an accused may move to quash an information on the ground that he has been previously acquitted or convicted, or the case against him was dismissed without his express consent, for the same offense. Where a defendant has been validly tried and acquitted of treason by a competent military court martial, filing a subsequent information for treason in a Regional Trial Court constitutes double jeopardy. The civil court must grant the motion to quash to enforce the constitutional prohibition.