This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-08-06 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of such discretion."[43] As to effect, "the grant of a demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal and cannot be appealed because it would place the accused in double jeopardy. The order is reviewable only by certiorari if it was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction."[44] When grave abuse of discretion is present, an order granting a demurrer becomes null and void. | |||||
|
2012-07-25 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In People of the Philippines v. Hon. Sandiganbayan (Third Division),[14] this Court clarified that for an acquittal to be considered tainted with grave abuse of discretion, there must be a showing that the prosecution's right to due process was violated or that the trial conducted was a sham. | |||||
|
2012-06-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Verily, in criminal cases, the grant of demurrer[30] is tantamount to an acquittal and the dismissal order may not be appealed because this would place the accused in double jeopardy. Although the dismissal order is not subject to appeal, it is still reviewable but only through certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. For the writ to issue, the trial court must be shown to have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham, thus, rendering the assailed judgment void. The burden is on the petitioner to clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.[31] In the present case, no such circumstances exist to warrant a departure from the general rule and reverse the findings of the Sandiganbayan. | |||||
|
2011-10-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The CA determined that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in ignoring the evidence presented by the prosecution and granting petitioners' demurrer to evidence on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish by sufficient evidence the existence of the crime.[45] An examination of the decision of the trial court, however, yields the conclusion that there was no grave abuse of discretion on its part. Even if the trial court had incorrectly overlooked the evidence against the petitioners, it only committed an error of judgment, and not one of jurisdiction, which could not be rectified by a petition for certiorari because double jeopardy had already set in.[46] | |||||