Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 167526 2010-07-26	PEOPLE v. DANTE TAN PERALTA, J.
In Saldana v. Court of Appeals,[39] this Court ruled that the prosecution's right to due process is violated when the trial court aborted its right to complete its presentation of evidence, thus: The order of the Court of Appeals reinstating the criminal case for further hearing by the trial court does not violate the rule on double jeopardy. One of the elements of double jeopardy is a competent court. The trial court in this case was ousted from its jurisdiction when it violated the right of the prosecution to due process by aborting its right to complete the presentation of its evidence. Hence, the first jeopardy had not been terminated. The remand of the case for further hearing or trial is merely a continuation of the first jeopardy. It does not expose the accused to a second jeopardy. x x x[40]
	GR No. 171175 2009-10-09	PEOPLE v. ARTURO F. DUCA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Pertinently, Saldana v. Court of Appeals, et al.[16] ruled as follows: When the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case, its right to due process is thereby violated (Uy vs. Genato, L-37399, 57 SCRA 123 [May 29, 1974]; Serino vs. Zoa, L-33116, 40 SCRA 433 [Aug. 31, 1971]; People vs. Gomez, L-22345, 20 SCRA 293 [May 29, 1967]; People vs. Balisacan, L-26376, 17 SCRA 1119 [Aug. 31, 1966]).