Practice question
An accused receives particulars identifying the relevant transactions. Later, a similar charge is brought and he invokes a prior final acquittal. Counsel dismisses the earlier particulars as irrelevant because their only function was witness scheduling. Which is correct?
- Particulars can help identify the offense for the former-acquittal defense; witness scheduling is not their only function
- Particulars have no role in identifying the accusation
- They are only a calendar document
- They automatically authorize two punishments
- They replace every requirement of double jeopardy
Legal references
- Rules of Court, Rule116 Sections1,3–9: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html
- Enrile v Sandiganbayan, GR258841, February27,2024, MAIN opinion, bill of particulars and criminal pre-trial order: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/feb2024/gr_258841_2024.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.