This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-12-07 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| In order to give life to the rule on double jeopardy, our rules on criminal proceedings require that a judgment of acquittal, whether ordered by the trial or the appellate court, is final, unappealable, and immediately executory upon its promulgation.[55] This is referred to as the "finality-of-acquittal" rule. The rationale for the rule was explained in People v. Velasco:[56] | |||||
|
2012-02-07 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We are called to overturn a judgment of acquittal in favor of the respondents brought about by the dismissal, for insufficiency of evidence, of the malversation charged in the two criminal cases. As a rule, once the court grants the demurrer, the grant amounts to an acquittal; any further prosecution of the accused would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.[20] Notably, the proscription against double jeopardy only envisages appeals based on errors of judgment, but not errors of jurisdiction. Jurisprudence recognizes two grounds where double jeopardy will not attach, these are: (i) on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;[21] and/or (ii) where there is a denial of a party's due process rights.[22] | |||||
|
2009-08-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A judgment of acquittal is final and is no longer reviewable.[11] It is also immediately executory and the State may not seek its review without placing the accused in double jeopardy.[12] We had occasion to fully explain the reason behind the double jeopardy rule in People v. Velasco[13]: The fundamental philosophy highlighting the finality of an acquittal by the trial court cuts deep into "the humanity of the laws and in a jealous watchfulness over the rights of the citizen, when brought in unequal contest with the State x x x x." Thus Green expressed the concern that "(t)he underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent, he may be found guilty." | |||||
|
2007-02-21 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As we have previously held in People v. Serrano, Sr.:[36] A verdict of acquittal is immediately final and a reexamination of the merits of such acquittal, even in the appellate courts, will put the accused in jeopardy for the same offense. The finality-of-acquittal doctrine has several avowed purposes. Primarily, it prevents the State from using its criminal processes as an instrument of harassment to wear out the accused by a multitude of cases with accumulated trials. It also serves the additional purpose of precluding the State, following an acquittal, from successively retrying the defendant in the hope of securing a conviction. And finally, it prevents the State, following conviction, from retrying the defendant again in the hope of securing a greater penalty.[37] In People v. Velasco,[38] we stressed that an acquitted defendant is entitled to the right of repose as a direct consequence of the finality of his acquittal. Hence, it cannot be disputed that the verdict of the Court of Appeals acquitting Ramon Galicia is now final and irreviewable.[39] | |||||
|
2006-08-28 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner contends that its petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA was the proper remedy since respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he consolidated the 321 criminal cases into one information and dismissed the "criminal case" on the ground of the denial of private respondents' right to speedy trial, without giving the prosecution the chance to present evidence. Citing People v. Velasco,[47] petitioner contends that the dismissal of the "criminal case" against private respondents is tantamount to their acquittal which, as a general rule, the prosecution cannot appeal from in the absence of a statute clearly conferring that right. In any case, the alleged existence of the remedy of appeal does not always foreclose the remedy of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. | |||||
|
2005-09-26 |
|||||
| The strict rule against appellate review of judgments of acquittal is not without any basis. As the Court explained in People v. Velasco[23] | |||||
|
2004-02-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Likewise, in People v. Velasco,[8] it was held that "Philippine jurisprudence has been consistent in its application of the Double Jeopardy Clause such that it has viewed with suspicion, and not without good reason, applications for the extraordinary writ questioning decisions acquitting an accused on ground of grave abuse of discretion. It further noted that the petition at hand which seeks to nullify the decision of respondent judge acquitting the accused Honorato Galvez goes deeply into the trial court's appreciation and evaluation in esse of the evidence adduced by the parties. This consequently exempts the act from the writ's limiting requirement of excess or lack of jurisdiction. As such, it becomes an improper object of and therefore non-reviewable by certiorari. To reiterate, errors of judgment are not to be confused with errors in the exercise of jurisdiction." | |||||
|
2002-08-21 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| the controversial 10 January 1996 Resolution are patently void and therefore produce no legal effects whatsoever. From the lowering of the penalty to qualify the accused for probation, the authorization for temporary liberty on recognizance, and finally the grant of probation, the orders of respondent Judge arising from these proceedings do not compel respectability and finality to constitute res judicata or even double jeopardy. A judgment rendered with grave abuse of discretion or without due process does not exist in legal contemplation and cannot be considered to have attained finality for the simple reason that a void judgment has no legality from its inception.[51] It may | |||||
|
2001-02-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the recent case of People v. Velasco and Galvez,[19] we held that the prosecution cannot avail of the remedies of special civil action on certiorari, petition for review on certiorari, or appeal in criminal cases. Previous to that, we categorically ruled that the writ of certiorari cannot be used by the State in a criminal case to correct a lower court's factual findings or evaluation of the evidence.[20] | |||||