Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 658 views

    G.R. No. 224673, January 22, 2018 CECILIA RIVAC, Petitioner, v. People of The Philippines, Respondent. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Man2x Salomon
    Cecilia Rivac was charged with estafa for allegedly receiving jewelry for consignment sale but failing to remit the proceeds or return the jewelry. The trial court found her guilty. After the decision was promulgated but before it became final, Rivac moved to reopen the proceedings, which the trial court granted. The Court of Appeals upheld Rivac's conviction and found that the trial court erred in reopening the case. However, the Supreme Court ruled that based on the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the trial court did not err because it can reopen a case before finality of judgment to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 224673, January 22, 2018 CECILIA RIVAC, Petitioner, v. People of The Philippines, Respondent. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Man2x Salomon
    658 views1 page
    Cecilia Rivac was charged with estafa for allegedly receiving jewelry for consignment sale but failing to remit the proceeds or return the jewelry. The trial court found her guilty. After the decision was promulgated but before it became final, Rivac moved to reopen the proceedings, which the trial court granted. The Court of Appeals upheld Rivac's conviction and found that the trial court erred in reopening the case. However, the Supreme Court ruled that based on the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the trial court did not err because it can reopen a case before finality of judgment to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

    Original Description:

    RIVAC v. People case digest; law files; remedial law

    Original Title

    RIVAC v. People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cecilia Rivac was charged with estafa for allegedly receiving jewelry for consignment sale but failing to remit the proceeds or return the jewelry. The trial court found her guilty. After the decision was promulgated but before it became final, Rivac moved to reopen the proceedings, which the trial court granted. The Court of Appeals upheld Rivac's conviction and found that the trial court erred in reopening the case. However, the Supreme Court ruled that based on the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the trial court did not err because it can reopen a case before finality of judgment to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    658 views1 page

    G.R. No. 224673, January 22, 2018 CECILIA RIVAC, Petitioner, v. People of The Philippines, Respondent. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Man2x Salomon
    Cecilia Rivac was charged with estafa for allegedly receiving jewelry for consignment sale but failing to remit the proceeds or return the jewelry. The trial court found her guilty. After the decision was promulgated but before it became final, Rivac moved to reopen the proceedings, which the trial court granted. The Court of Appeals upheld Rivac's conviction and found that the trial court erred in reopening the case. However, the Supreme Court ruled that based on the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the trial court did not err because it can reopen a case before finality of judgment to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    224673, January 22, 2018

    CECILIA RIVAC, Petitioner, v. 
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

    FACTS:
    Cecilia Rivac was charged of the crime Estafa before the RTC. The
    information stated that she allegedly received for sale on consignment pieces of
    jewelry for a total value of Php 439,500.00 under the express obligation to remit
    the proceeds of the sale or if not sold, to return the pieces of jewelry after 7 days.
    However, despite the lapse of the aforesaid period, Rivac failed to perform what
    was incumbent upon her.
    The RTC found Rivac guilty beyond reasonable doubt. After the
    promulgation of the aforesaid Judgment and before it lapsed into finality, Rivac
    moved to reopen proceedings which was party granted by the RTC. Ca upheld
    Rivac’s conviction and held that the RTC erred in allowing the reopening of the
    case.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the RTC erred in reopening the case.

    RATIO DECIDENDI:
    No. The RTC did not err in reopening the case.
    Section 24, Rule 119 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
    governs the reopening of criminal cases for further trial. It states in verbatim: "At
    any time before finality of the judgment of conviction, the judge may, motu
    proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either case, reopen the proceedings to
    avoid a miscarriage of justice. The proceedings shall be terminated within thirty
    (30) days from the order granting it."
    A motion to reopen may be filed even after the promulgation of a judgment
    and before the same lapses into finality, and the only guiding parameter is to
    "avoid the miscarriage of justice."
    In this light, the CA clearly erred in holding that: (a) it was improper for the
    RTC to reopen its proceedings because the latter court had already promulgated its
    judgment; and (b) assuming arguendo that what it did was a new trial, there were
    no grounds for its allowance. As such, the RTC correctly allowed the reopening of
    proceedings to receive Fariñas's subsequent testimony in order to shed light on the
    true nature of her transaction with Rivac, and potentially, determine whether or not
    the latter is indeed criminally liable.

    You might also like