This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-03-23 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As it stands, the acquittal on the crime of robbery based on lack of sufficient evidence is immediately final and cannot be appealed on the ground of double jeopardy.[27] A judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. In fact, the Court cannot, even an appeal based on an alleged misappreciation of evidence, review the verdict of acquittal of the trial court[28] due to the constitutional proscription, the purpose of which is to afford the defendant, who has been acquitted, final repose and safeguard from government oppression through the abuse of criminal processes.[29] The crime of robbery was not proven during the trial. As we discussed, the acquittal of the accused-appellant, including Danilo, is not reversible. | |||||
|
2012-08-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| A judgment of acquittal is final and is no longer reviewable.[24] As we have previously held in People v. Court of Appeals,[25] "[a] verdict of acquittal is immediately final and a reexamination of the merits of such acquittal, even in the appellate courts, will put the accused in jeopardy for the same offense."[26] True, the finality of acquittal rule is not one without exception as when the trial court commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In such a case, the judgment of acquittal may be questioned through the extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In the instant case, however, we cannot treat the appeal as a Rule 65 petition as it raises no jurisdictional error that can invalidate the judgment of acquittal. Suffice it to state that the trial court is in the best position to determine the sufficiency of evidence against both appellant and Ginumtad. It is a well-settled rule that this Court accords great respect and full weight to the trial court's findings, unless the trial court overlooked substantial facts which could have affected the outcome of the case.[27] It is not at all irregular for a court to convict one of the accused and acquit the other. The acquittal of Ginumtad in this case is final and it shall not be disturbed. | |||||
|
2009-08-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A judgment of acquittal is final and is no longer reviewable.[11] It is also immediately executory and the State may not seek its review without placing the accused in double jeopardy.[12] We had occasion to fully explain the reason behind the double jeopardy rule in People v. Velasco[13]: The fundamental philosophy highlighting the finality of an acquittal by the trial court cuts deep into "the humanity of the laws and in a jealous watchfulness over the rights of the citizen, when brought in unequal contest with the State x x x x." Thus Green expressed the concern that "(t)he underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent, he may be found guilty." | |||||
|
2009-07-13 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| It is hornbook principle that the term "grave abuse of discretion" means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[15] The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law.[16] | |||||