This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-03-02 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We do not agree. In the instant case, double jeopardy has not yet set in. The first jeopardy has not yet attached. There is no question that four of the five elements of legal jeopardy are present. However, we find the last element - valid conviction, acquittal, dismissal or termination of the case - wanting. As previously discussed, the Sandignabayan violated the prosecution's right to due process. The prosecution was deprived of its opportunity to prosecute its case and to prove the accused's culpability. The dismissal was made in a capricious and whimsical manner. The trial court dismissed the case on a ground not invoked by the respondent. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence, while the ground invoked by the respondent was that the facts charged did not constitute an offense. The dismissal was clearly premature, because any dismissal based on insufficiency of evidence may only be made after the prosecution rests its case and not at any time before then.[26] A purely capricious dismissal of an information deprives the State of a fair opportunity to prosecute and convict. It denies the prosecution a day in court. It is void and cannot be the basis of double jeopardy.[27] | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The Sandiganbayan ordered the dismissal of the 13 cases as against the petitioners over the objection of the Special Prosecutor on its erroneous perception that Justice Marigomen recommended in his report the dismissal of the 13 cases against the petitioners. By its Order, the graft court deprived the respondent People of the Philippines of its right to due process. In fine, the Sandiganbayan acted in excess of its jurisdiction and committed grave abuse of its discretion in dismissing the 13 criminal cases against the petitioners.[30] Hence, its Order dated January 26, 1998 dismissing the 13 criminal cases, as against the petitioners, was null and void;[31] it may thus be rectified, as did the graft court, per its Resolution dated April 6, 1999 despite the lapse of fifteen days from notice of the Special Prosecutor of its January 26, 1998 Order. By rectifying its void Order, it cannot be said that the graft court acted with grave abuse of its discretion, amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. | |||||