[CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] 1a IN THE PUERTO RICO SUPREME COURT The People of Puerto Rico Respondent v. Luis M. Sánchez Valle Petitioner _______________________________________ The People of Puerto Rico Respondent v. Jaime Gómez Vázquez Petitioner ______________________________________ The People of Puerto Rico v. René Rivero Betancourt _______________________________________ The People of Puerto Rico v. Rafael A. Delgado Rodriguez _______________________________________ CC-2013-0068 CC-2013-0072 Opinion of the Court issued by Associate Judge Mr. MARTÍNEZ TORRES. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, on March 20, 2015 [CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] 2a To decide these consolidated cases, we must review the rule that we established in Pueblo v. Castro García, 120 P.R. Dec. 740 (1988). For the following reasons, we hereby overrule said precedent and hold that, pursuant to the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, and because Puerto Rico is not a federal state, a person who has been acquitted, convicted or prosecuted in federal court cannot be prosecuted for the same offense in the Puerto Rico courts. I A. CC-2013-0068 On September 28, 2008, the prosecution filed three charges against Mr. Luis M. Sánchez del Valle accusing him of: 1) a violation of Article 5.01 of the Puerto Rico Weapons Act, 25 P.R. Laws Ann. § 458, for selling a firearm without a permit; 2) a second violation of Article 5.01 of the Puerto Rico Weapons Act, supra, for selling ammunition without a permit; and 3) a violation of Article 5.04 of the Puerto Rico Weapons Act, 25 P.R. Laws Ann. § 458c, for illegally carrying a firearm. Under the same facts, a federal grand jury indicted Mr. Sánchez del Valle of illegally trafficking in weapons and ammunition in interstate commerce. Specifically, he was accused of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A), 923(a), 924(a)(1)(D) and 2. In contrast to the state court, he was not changed with the offense of illegally carrying weapons. Eventually, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico sentenced Mr. Sánchez del Valle to five [CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] 3a months of prison, five months of house arrest and three years of supervised release. In light of that, Mr. Sánchez del Valle filed a motion to dismiss with the Court of First Instance, Carolina Part, alleging that, pursuant to the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, he could not be prosecuted in Puerto Rico for the same offenses for which he had been found guilty in federal court. For its part, the prosecution argued that, according to the ruling in Pueblo v. Castro García, supra, the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “Commonwealth”) derive their authority from different sources and both have the power to punish offenses without infringing the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy. The Court of First Instance dismissed the accusations filed against Mr. Sánchez del Valle. It held that Mr. Sánchez del Valle could not be indicted twice for the same offenses and before the same sovereign entity. According to the Court of First Instance, Puerto Rico is not a different and separate jurisdiction from the United States inasmuch as the sovereignty of both arises from the same source, to wit, the United States Congress. It concluded that, given the federal court ruling, the indictments filed in state court violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Not satisfied, the prosecution turned to the Court of Appeals. [CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] 4a B. CC-2013-0072 On September 28, 2008, the prosecution filed three charges against Mr. Jaime Gómez Vázquez for offenses related to the previous case, accusing him of: 1) a violation of Article 5.01 of the Puerto Rico Weapons Act, 25 P.R. Laws Ann. § 458, for illegally selling and transferring a firearm; 2) a violation of Article 5.07 of the Puerto Rico Weapons Act, 25 P.R. Laws Ann. § 458f, for carrying a riffle; and 3) a violation of Article 5.10 of the Puerto Rico Weapons Act, 25 P.R. Laws Ann. § 458i, for transferring a mutilated weapon. On that same date, a finding of probable cause was made in his absence, a warrant was issued for his arrest and bail was set at $325,000. Subsequently, before the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, a grand jury filed five charges against Mr. Gómez Vázquez, Mr. Gómez Pastrana, Mr. Delgado Rodríguez and Mr. Rodríguez Betancourt for the same offenses for which they had been prosecuted in state court.1 Specifically, Mr. Gómez Vázquez was accused of violating the following statutes: 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A), 923(a), 924(a)(1)(D), for the illegal sale of weapons in interstate commerce. In contrast to the state court, he was not charged with illegally carrying long weapons or of weapon mutilation. 1 There is no question that the charges are for the same offenses. Appendix, at 205 and 214. [CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] 5a In March of 2010, Mr. Gómez Vázquez filed a plea bargain with the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico whereby he pleaded guilty of the charges filed against him. Appendix, at 205. On June 26, 2010, the federal court sentenced him to 18 months of prison and 3 years of supervised release. On August 27, 2010, Mr. Gómez Vázquez filed with the Court of First Instance, Superior Court, Carolina Part, a motion to dismiss under Rule 64(e) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 34 P.R. Laws Ann. Ap. II. He claimed that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Section 11 of Article 11 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, P.R. Laws Ann., Volume I, protected him from being prosecuted in the Puerto Rico courts after being charged for the same offenses. Essentially, Mr. Gómez Vázquez argued that the United States and Puerto Rico were the same sovereign within the meaning of said constitutional clause and, therefore, could not submit him to two separate criminal prosecutions for the same offense or behavior. In other words, he argued that the exception to the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, known as the doctrine of “dual sovereignty,” did not apply to Puerto Rico. In response, the prosecution argued that, under this Court’s holding in Pueblo v. Castro García, supra, conduct constituting an offense both in federal court and in state court could be penalized separately in both jurisdictions without violating the constitutional clause against double jeopardy or [CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] 6a implying multiple punishments for the same conduct or behavior. The prosecution argued that the sovereignty of the United States and the sovereignty of Puerto Rico were separate and different for purposes of the referenced constitutional clause. Thus, it stated that Mr. Gómez Vázquez could be tried in the Puerto Rico courts for the same offenses for which he was sentenced in federal court. In a June 26, 2012 decision, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss filed by Mr. Gómez Vázquez. It ruled that the sovereignty or source of power of Puerto Rico to criminally prosecute its citizens resided and emanated from the federal government through Congress and that, for that reason, the doctrine of “dual sovereignty” did not apply. It concluded that the charges filed against Mr. Gómez Vázquez violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy provided by the Constitution of the United States and the Puerto Rico Constitution. Not satisfied, the prosecution turned to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals consolidated the cases described above and reversed the trial court’s rulings. It ruled that, under current law, a person could be submitted to criminal prosecution both in federal court and in state court for the same criminal behavior without violating the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy. Judge González Vargas issued a dissenting vote and Judge Medina Monteserín issued a concurring vote. Not satisfied with the decision, Mr. Sánchez del Valle and Mr. Gómez Vázquez filed separate [CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] 7a petitions before this Court. We issued the writs of certiorari and, because they raise the same controversy, we consolidated them. With the benefit of the appearance of all the parties involved, we hereby decide. II The constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy protects every person charged with an offense by guaranteeing that he or she will not be “placed at risk of being punished twice for the same offense.” P.R. Const. Art. II § 10, P.R. Laws Ann., Vol. 1. See Pueblo v. Santos Santos, 189 P.R. Dec. 361 (2013). Likewise, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States establishes that “no person may be submitted to trial twice for the same offense.”2 U.S. Const. amend. V, P.R. Laws Ann., Vol. 1. See Pueblo v. Santiago, 160 P.R. Dec. 618 (2003); Pueblo v. Martínez Torres, 126 P.R. Dec. 561 (1990); Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (1984); E.L. Chiesa Aponte, Derecho Procesal Penal de Puerto Rico y Estados Unidos, Colombia, Ed. Forum, 1992, Vol. II § 16.1 (B), at 354. For the constitutional protection against double jeopardy to apply, several requirements must be met. Pueblo v. Santos Santos, supra, at 367. First of all, the proceedings held against the accused must be criminal in nature. Pueblo v. Santiago, supra, at 2 The original text in English reads: “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” [CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] 8a 628. It is necessary, also, for a first trial to have been initiated or held under a valid indictment and in a court with jurisdiction.