This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-10-25 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| True, as pointed out by respondent, this Court has consistently ruled that double jeopardy does not attach where the State is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case,[24] or where the dismissal of an information or complaint is purely capricious or devoid of reason,[25] or when there is lack of proper notice and absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.[26] These exceptional circumstances are not herein present and respondent should have known that granting the appeal would constitute double jeopardy. The proper recourse would be a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. | |||||
|
2005-10-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As held in Aquino v. Sison,[16] the motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence filed by the accused after the conclusion of the cross-examination of the witness for the prosecution, is premature because the latter is still in the process of presenting evidence. The chemistry report relied upon by the court in granting the motion to dismiss was disregarded because it was not properly identified or formally offered as evidence. Verily, until such time that the prosecution closed its evidence, the defense cannot be considered to have seasonably filed a demurrer to evidence or a motion for leave to file the same. | |||||