This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-06-16 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| As gleaned from the material averments in the petition as well as in the other pleadings of petitioner, the present action appears to be one under both Rule 45 and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. However, the prosecution cannot simultaneously avail of the remedies of a special civil action for certiorari, petition for review on certiorari, or appeal in civil cases.[20] A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court are two and separate remedies. A petition under Rule 45 brings up for review errors of judgment, while a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 covers errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion is not an allowable ground under Rule 45.[21] A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is a mode of appeal. Under Section 1 of the said Rule, a party aggrieved by the decision or final order of the Sandiganbayan may file a petition for review on certiorari with this Court: Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court, or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. However, the provision must be read in relation to Section 1, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court, which provides that any party may appeal from a judgment or final order "unless the accused will thereby be placed in double jeopardy." The judgment that may be appealed by the aggrieved party envisaged in the Rule is a judgment convicting the accused, and not a judgment of acquittal. The State is barred from appealing such judgment of acquittal by a petition for review. | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In People vs. Court of Appeals,[18] the Court ruled that when, during the trial of the case, an accused claims that the crime was the result of an accident, the burden of proving self-defense will not come into play, to wit:… It is noteworthy that during the trial, petitioner Tangan did not invoke self-defense but claimed that Generoso was accidentally shot. As such, the burden of proving self-defense, which normally would have belonged to Tangan, did not come into play. Although Tangan must prove his defense of accidental firing by clear and convincing evidence, the burden of proving the commission of the crime remained in the prosecution.[19] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||