This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-01-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Appeals,[10] the Court elucidates on the two kinds of acquittal recognized by our law as well as on the different effects of acquittal on the civil liability of the accused, viz: Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the accused. First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person | |||||
|
2004-10-21 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the case of Manantan v. Court of Appeals,[15] we elucidated on the two kinds of acquittal recognized by our law as well as its different effects on the civil liability of the accused. Thus:x x x. First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission. There being no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. This is the situation contemplated in Article 29 of the Civil Code, x x x. | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| It must be emphasized that in an administrative case, the Court can only pass upon the administrative liability of the respondent. The case cannot be used as a remedy to challenge the assailed decision rendered by respondent. An administrative complaint cannot be a substitute for other judicial remedies available to the complainants,[49] such as a motion for reconsideration or a special civil action for certiorari.[50] Using such other remedies, complainants must establish that the judgment of acquittal resulted from a mistrial; otherwise, the retrial of the criminal cases would place the accused in double jeopardy.[51] The rule on double jeopardy provides that when a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without the consent of the accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense.[52] | |||||