Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 198270 2015-12-09	ARMILYN MORILLO v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
More importantly, moreover, since the dismissal of the instant case cannot be considered as an acquittal of respondent herein, he cannot likewise claim that his constitutional right to protection against double jeopardy will be violated. In Paulin v. Hon. Gimenez,[40] the Court held:Jurisprudence on double jeopardy as well as the exceptions thereto which finds application to the case at bar has been laid down by this Court as follows:
	GR No. 185267 2014-09-17	CESAR T. QUIAMBAO v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
As held in Paulin v. Gimenez:[19]
	GR No. 172777 2011-10-19	BENJAMIN B. BANGAYAN v. SALLY GO BANGAYAN MENDOZA, J.
Double jeopardy attaches if the following elements are present: (1) a valid complaint or information; (2) a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and (4) the defendant was acquitted, or convicted or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.[37] However, jurisprudence allows for certain exceptions when the dismissal is considered final even if it was made on motion of the accused, to wit: (1) Where the dismissal is based on a demurrer to evidence filed by the accused after the prosecution has rested, which has the effect of a judgment on the merits and operates as an acquittal.