Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 86 views

    REMREV - CRIMPRO RULE 120 Judgment People Vs Asis

    Uploaded by

    Agatha Bernice Macalalad
    The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to question a verdict of acquittal from a lower court. While a judgment of acquittal is generally final and unappealable, exceptions include if the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process. In this case, the respondent judge's acquittal of the accused was improper as his findings were contrary to evidence and law, constituting grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, a petition for certiorari was correctly filed instead of an appeal to avoid violating the accused's right against double jeopardy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    REMREV - CRIMPRO RULE 120 Judgment People Vs Asis

    Uploaded by

    Agatha Bernice Macalalad
    86 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to question a verdict of acquittal from a lower court. While a judgment of acquittal is generally final and unappealable, exceptions include if the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process. In this case, the respondent judge's acquittal of the accused was improper as his findings were contrary to evidence and law, constituting grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, a petition for certiorari was correctly filed instead of an appeal to avoid violating the accused's right against double jeopardy.

    Original Title

    REMREV - CRIMPRO RULE 120 Judgment People vs Asis.doc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to question a verdict of acquittal from a lower court. While a judgment of acquittal is generally final and unappealable, exceptions include if the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process. In this case, the respondent judge's acquittal of the accused was improper as his findings were contrary to evidence and law, constituting grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, a petition for certiorari was correctly filed instead of an appeal to avoid violating the accused's right against double jeopardy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    86 views2 pages

    REMREV - CRIMPRO RULE 120 Judgment People Vs Asis

    Uploaded by

    Agatha Bernice Macalalad
    The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to question a verdict of acquittal from a lower court. While a judgment of acquittal is generally final and unappealable, exceptions include if the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process. In this case, the respondent judge's acquittal of the accused was improper as his findings were contrary to evidence and law, constituting grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, a petition for certiorari was correctly filed instead of an appeal to avoid violating the accused's right against double jeopardy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ENRIQUE C.

    ASIS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS


    PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BILIRAN PROVINCE, BRANCH 16, AND
    JAIME ABORDO, RESPONDENTS.

    [G.R. No. 173089 : August 25, 2010 MENDOZA, J.:]

    TOPIC: Rule 120 – Judgment


    DOCTRINE: the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable
    exceptions:
    i. a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition for certiorari
    under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court upon clear showing by the petitioner that the lower
    court, in acquitting the accused, committed not merely reversible errors of judgmentbut
    also grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or adenial of
    due process, thus rendering the assailed judgment void.
    ii. where the acquittal of the accused was via the grant of his demurrer to evidence based
    on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
    Such dismissal order, being considered void judgment, does not result in jeopardy.

    FACTS:
    1. Abordo was charged with 2 counts of attempted murder and 1 count of frustrated murder before
    RTC of Biliran Province.
    a. TC found no treachery and evident premeditation.
    b. RTC held Abordo liable only for Serious Physical Injuries for shooting Calvez and Less
    Serious Physical Injuries with regard to Majait.
    c. It also appreciated four (4) generic mitigating circumstances in favor of Abordo. With
    respect to the complaint of Montes, Abordo was acquitted.
    2. All 3 complainants moved for reconsideration regarding civil aspect.
    3. Calvez without the conformity of the Provincial Prosecutor, filed a notice of appeal for both the
    civil and the criminal aspects.
    a. Calvez later sought withdrawal of his motion for reconsideration and its supplement.
    4. TC dismissed Majait's motion for reconsideration while Calvez's motion to withdraw was granted.
    a. It also dismissed Calvez' appeal for not bearing the conformity of the Provincial
    Prosecutor.
    5. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA was filed.
    a. CA dismissed the petition the remedy should have been an appeal. Moreover, the
    petition for certiorari placed the accused in double jeopardy.
    x x x. Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such
    correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari. Where the error is not one of jurisdiction but an
    error of law or fact a mistake of judgment appeal is the remedy. In view of the improper action taken by
    the herein petitioner, the instant petition should be dismissed.

    ISSUE: Whether petition for certiorari was the proper remedy to question error of judgment.

    HELD: YES, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not appeal, is the remedy to question a verdict of
    acquittal whether at the trial court or at the appellate level. As the case was summarily dismissed on a
    technicality, the merits of the petition for certiorari were not at all discussed.

    1. the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable
    b. exceptions:
    i. a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition for certiorari
    under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court upon clear showing by the petitioner that the lower
    court, in acquitting the accused, committed not merely reversible errors of judgmentbut
    also grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or adenial of
    due process, thus rendering the assailed judgment void.
    ii. where the acquittal of the accused was via the grant of his demurrer to evidence based
    on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
    Such dismissal order, being considered void judgment, does not result in jeopardy.
    2. In the case, Abordo's acquittal was improper. Since appeal could not be taken without violating
    Abordo's constitutionally guaranteed right against double jeopardy, the OSG was correct in
    pursuing its cause via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the appellate court.
    a. In ruling that private respondent had no intent to kill private complainants, respondent judge
    thus accorded full faith and credit to the testimonies of private respondent and his
    witnesses Julito Bernadas and Melquiades Palconit. His findings, however, are contrary to
    law and the evidence. Therefore, he acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
    lack or excess of jurisdiction

    You might also like