This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-08-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Expectedly, the respondents object to the petition mainly because the review sought violates their constitutional right against double jeopardy.[8] They assert that the petition is essentially an appeal from a judgment of acquittal or a review of alleged errors in judgment that throws the case wide open, placing the respondents in danger of being punished twice for the same offense. They also posit that a judgment of acquittal can only be challenged through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, citing our ruling in People v. Sandiganbayan[9] that only a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process to the State can justify a review of a judgment of acquittal through a petition for certiorari. The present petition, according to the respondents, is a Rule 45 appeal that raises errors of judgment, not errors of jurisdiction. On the merits, the respondents claim that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in acquitting them of the criminal charge. | |||||
|
2005-10-25 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| True, as pointed out by respondent, this Court has consistently ruled that double jeopardy does not attach where the State is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case,[24] or where the dismissal of an information or complaint is purely capricious or devoid of reason,[25] or when there is lack of proper notice and absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.[26] These exceptional circumstances are not herein present and respondent should have known that granting the appeal would constitute double jeopardy. The proper recourse would be a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. | |||||