This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-08-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| A judgment of acquittal is final and is no longer reviewable.[24] As we have previously held in People v. Court of Appeals,[25] "[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."[26] True, the finality of acquittal rule is not one without exception as when the trial court commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In such a case, the judgment of acquittal may be questioned through the extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In the instant case, however, we cannot treat the appeal as a Rule 65 petition as it raises no jurisdictional error that can invalidate the judgment of acquittal. Suffice it to state that the trial court is in the best position to determine the sufficiency of evidence against both appellant and Ginumtad. It is a well-settled rule that this Court accords great respect and full weight to the trial court's findings, unless the trial court overlooked substantial facts which could have affected the outcome of the case.[27] It is not at all irregular for a court to convict one of the accused and acquit the other. The acquittal of Ginumtad in this case is final and it shall not be disturbed. | |||||
|
2011-11-16 |
REYES, A., J. |
||||
| Lastly, a review of the findings of the CA acquitting Socorro of the charge against her is not warranted under the circumstances as it runs afoul of the avowed constitutional right of an accused against double jeopardy. A verdict of acquittal is immediately final, and a re-examination of the merits of such acquittal, even in the appellate courts, will put the accused in jeopardy for the same offense.[10] | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| [16] People of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159261, February 21, 2007, 516 SCRA 383, 398. | |||||
|
2007-10-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We agree with the Court of Appeals that we may no longer review the acquittal of the other accused. A verdict of acquittal is immediately final.[12] However, the acquittal of his co-accused does not necessarily benefit appellant. In People v. Uganap,[13] appellant questioned the trial court's decision which convicted him alone of murder and acquitted the rest of the accused. The Court ruled that appellant may not invoke the acquittal of the other conspirators to merit the reversal of his conviction.[14] The Court declared:There is nothing irregular with the acquittal of one of the supposed co-conspirators and the conviction of another. Generally, conspiracy is only a means by which a crime is committed as the mere act of conspiring is not by itself punishable. Hence, it does not follow that one person alone cannot be convicted when there is a finding of conspiracy. As long as the acquittal of a co-conspirator does not remove the basis of a charge of conspiracy, one defendant may be found guilty of the offense.[15] | |||||