Practice question
An accused prevents the same witness from attending one preliminary investigation and later presents a false affidavit in that very proceeding. The facts establish the single indivisible obstruction design found in Navaja. A conviction for one partial act already exists, and another prosecution seeks the other partial act as an entirely separate crime. Which concern follows Navaja?
- The Court treated the acts as one offense and rejected the second case to avoid double jeopardy
- Different dates necessarily defeat every double-jeopardy concern
- Every paper filed is automatically unrelated
- The accused’s single plan proves two independent resolutions
- Venue in two places always authorizes two convictions for the same offense
Legal references
- Navaja v De Castro GR180969 September11,2017 MAIN, single preliminary-investigation obstruction design: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/sep2017/gr_180969_2017.html
- Rule110 Section15(a), place of institution and trial: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.