This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
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] | |||||
|
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] | |||||