Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 86 views

    102

    Uploaded by

    PAMELA DOLINA
    The RTC granted the demurrer to evidence filed by defendants X and Y, acquitting them of qualified trafficking charges. The CA reversed this decision, finding inconsistencies in the RTC's ruling and ordering the case reinstated. However, the Supreme Court found that reversing the acquittal would violate X and Y's right against double jeopardy. Once acquitted, defendants cannot be retried for the same offense even if the acquittal was erroneous, unless the prosecution was denied due process in the first trial. As the prosecution had a fair opportunity to present its case, double jeopardy protections applied and the acquittal of X and Y was final and could not be overturned.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    102

    Uploaded by

    PAMELA DOLINA
    86 views1 page
    The RTC granted the demurrer to evidence filed by defendants X and Y, acquitting them of qualified trafficking charges. The CA reversed this decision, finding inconsistencies in the RTC's ruling and ordering the case reinstated. However, the Supreme Court found that reversing the acquittal would violate X and Y's right against double jeopardy. Once acquitted, defendants cannot be retried for the same offense even if the acquittal was erroneous, unless the prosecution was denied due process in the first trial. As the prosecution had a fair opportunity to present its case, double jeopardy protections applied and the acquittal of X and Y was final and could not be overturned.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The RTC granted the demurrer to evidence filed by defendants X and Y, acquitting them of qualified trafficking charges. The CA reversed this decision, finding inconsistencies in the RTC's ruling and ordering the case reinstated. However, the Supreme Court found that reversing the acquittal would violate X and Y's right against double jeopardy. Once acquitted, defendants cannot be retried for the same offense even if the acquittal was erroneous, unless the prosecution was denied due process in the first trial. As the prosecution had a fair opportunity to present its case, double jeopardy protections applied and the acquittal of X and Y was final and could not be overturned.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    86 views1 page

    102

    Uploaded by

    PAMELA DOLINA
    The RTC granted the demurrer to evidence filed by defendants X and Y, acquitting them of qualified trafficking charges. The CA reversed this decision, finding inconsistencies in the RTC's ruling and ordering the case reinstated. However, the Supreme Court found that reversing the acquittal would violate X and Y's right against double jeopardy. Once acquitted, defendants cannot be retried for the same offense even if the acquittal was erroneous, unless the prosecution was denied due process in the first trial. As the prosecution had a fair opportunity to present its case, double jeopardy protections applied and the acquittal of X and Y was final and could not be overturned.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    102. Case Title: Raya v.

    People,
    G.R. No. 237798, May 5, 2021
    Syllabi Class: Double jeopardy

    Q: X & Y were charged with Qualified Trafficking in Persons. After Republic A rested its case, X
    & Y filed a Motion for Leave to File Attached Demurrer to Evidence with attached Demurrer to
    Evidence to which Republic A filed its Comment/Opposition thereto. The RTC then issued the
    Resolution granting the Demurrer on the ground that, based on its assessment, the testimonies
    of the prosecution witnesses were plagued with inconsistencies. The witnesses for the
    prosecution showed various discrepancies, inconsistencies and contradiction between their
    testimonies in court and their affidavits. The presumption of regularity in the performance of the
    official duties of said policemen was ruined by their own contradicting testimonies and
    irregularities which erode the credence of their declarations. Taken as a whole, the sum total of
    the evidence presented by the prosecution against the two (2) accused are not enough to
    sustain conviction, even if unrebutted. Disagreeing with the RTC, Republic A, filed a petition for
    certiorari before the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
    jurisdiction in the RTC's issuance of the Resolution granting the Demurrer. The CA granted the
    petition for certiorari and reversed the acquittal made by the RTC. The CA also noted that the
    RTC granted the demurrer because witness Z supposedly did not testify that she was "recruited,
    obtained, (acquired), hired, provided, offered and transported x x x to be engaged by another in
    sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in exchange for money, profit or other consideration by
    either or both accused X & Y. The CA thus declared null and void the RTC's Resolution granting
    the Demurrer, and ordered the case reinstated for continuation of the proceedings. Was X & Y’s
    right against double jeopardy violated?

    A: Yes. The grant of the Demurrer cannot be reversed without offending X & Y's constitutional
    right against double jeopardy. Article III, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution provides that "no
    person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished
    by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another
    prosecution for the same act." This is what is otherwise known as the right against double
    jeopardy. To give life to the right against double jeopardy, the Court has, in numerous
    occasions, adhered to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, which provides that "a judgment of
    acquittal, whether ordered by the trial or the appellate court, is final, unappealable, and
    immediately executory upon its promulgation." The public interest in the finality of criminal
    judgments is so strong that an acquitted defendant may not be retried even though the acquittal
    was based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation. If the innocence of the accused has
    been confirmed by a final judgment, the Constitution conclusively presumes that a second trial
    would be unfair. Thus, the finality-of-acquittal rule has the same animus as the right against
    double jeopardy. However, the finality-of-acquittal doctrine does not apply when the prosecution
    - the sovereign people, as represented by the State - was denied a fair opportunity to be heard.
    Simply put, the doctrine does not apply when the prosecution was denied its day in court - or
    simply, denied due process.

    You might also like