This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-03-02 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In support of the dismissal of the case against him, respondent Dumlao contends that to give due course to the Ombudsman's petition would place him in double jeopardy, in violation of his constitutional rights. Respondent Dumlao asserts that all the elements of double jeopardy are present in the case at bar. Citing Heirs of Tito Rillorta v. Firme,[23] he added: "[A]ssuming arguendo that the Sandiganbayan committed an error, whatever error may have been committed by the Sandiganbayan was merely an error of judgment and not of jurisdiction. It did not affect the intrinsic validity of the decision. This is the kind of error that can no longer be rectified on appeal by the prosecution, no matter how obvious the error may be." | |||||
|
2000-09-13 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| While some reservations may be had about the contemporary validity of this observation considering the variety of offsprings begotten, at least in the United States, by the mother rule since then, perhaps it is safer to say that not much deviation has occurred from the general rule laid out in Kepner. For Kepner may be said to have been the lighthouse for the floundering issues on the effect of acquittals on jeopardy as they sail safely home. The cases of People v. Bringas,[72] People v. Hernandez,[73] People v. Montemayor,[74] City Fiscal of Cebu v. Kintanar,[75] Republic v. Court of Appeals,[76] and Heirs of Tito Rillorta v. Firme,[77] to name a few, are illustrative. Certainly, the reason behind this has not been due to a stubborn refusal or reluctance to "keep up with the Joneses," in a manner of speaking, but to maintain fidelity to the principle carefully nurtured by our Constitution, statutes and jurisprudence. As early as Julia v. Sotto[78] the Court warned that without this safeguard against double jeopardy secured in favor of the accused, his fortune, safety and peace of mind would be entirely at the mercy of the complaining witness who might repeat his accusation as often as dismissed by the court and whenever he might see fit, subject to no other limitation or restriction than his own will and pleasure. | |||||