Scribd
Upload
159 views2 pages

Double Jeopardy in Acquittal Cases

1) The Supreme Court of the Philippines acquitted Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, and others of murder charges related to the Vizconde massacre case due to lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 2) The complainant in the case, Lauro G. Vizconde, filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its decision of acquittal. 3) The court denied the motion for reconsideration, finding that reconsidering a judgment of acquittal would subject the accused to double jeopardy as they had already been absolved of the crime. The complainant did not establish any valid exceptions that would allow reconsideration of the acquittal.

Uploaded by

Arjay Volante Santiago
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
159 views2 pages

Double Jeopardy in Acquittal Cases

1) The Supreme Court of the Philippines acquitted Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, and others of murder charges related to the Vizconde massacre case due to lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 2) The complainant in the case, Lauro G. Vizconde, filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its decision of acquittal. 3) The court denied the motion for reconsideration, finding that reconsidering a judgment of acquittal would subject the accused to double jeopardy as they had already been absolved of the crime. The complainant did not establish any valid exceptions that would allow reconsideration of the acquittal.

Uploaded by

Arjay Volante Santiago
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Arjay V.

Santiago 2nd year - Block B

Criminal Procedure

G.R. No. 176389 January 18, 2011 ANTONIO LEJANO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 176864 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, ANTONIO LEJANO, MICHAEL A. GATCHALIAN, HOSPICIO FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, PETER ESTRADA and GERARDO BIONG, Appellants. FACTS: On December 14, 2010 the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and acquitted the accused in this case, Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada, and Gerardo Biong of the charges against them on the ground of lack of proof of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On December 28, 2010 complainant Lauro G. Vizconde, asked the Court to reconsider its decision, claiming that it "denied the prosecution due process of law; seriously misappreciated the facts; unreasonably regarded Alfaro as lacking credibility; issued a tainted and erroneous decision; decided the case in a manner that resulted in the miscarriage of justice; or committed grave abuse in its treatment of the evidence and prosecution witnesses." ISSUE: Whether or not the accused may be subject of the double jeopardy in case the motion for reconsideration filed by Vizconde is entertained? HELD: Yes, the Court ruled that, as a rule, a judgment of acquittal cannot be reconsidered because it places the accused under double jeopardy. To reconsider a judgment of acquittal places the accused twice in jeopardy of being punished for the crime of which he has already been absolved. In criminal cases, the full power of the State is ranged against the accused. If there is no limit to attempts to prosecute the accused for the same offense after he has been

acquitted, the infinite power and capacity of the State for a sustained and repeated litigation would eventually overwhelm the accused in terms of resources, stamina, and the will to fight. Of course, on occasions, a motion for reconsideration after an acquittal is possible. But the grounds are exceptional and narrow as when the court that absolved the accused gravely abused its discretion, resulting in loss of jurisdiction, or when a mistrial has occurred. In any of such cases, the State may assail the decision by special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65. Here, although complainant Vizconde invoked the exceptions, he has been unable to bring his pleas for reconsideration under such exceptions. He avers that the Court "must ensure that due process is afforded to all parties and there is no grave abuse of discretion in the treatment of witnesses and the evidence." But he has not specified the violations of due process or acts constituting grave abuse of discretion that the Court supposedly committed. His claim that "the highly questionable and suspicious evidence for the defense taints with serious doubts the validity of the decision" is, without more, a mere conclusion drawn from personal perception. Ultimately, what the complainant actually questions is the Courts appreciation of the evidence and assessment of the prosecution witnesses credibility. He ascribes grave error on the Courts finding that Alfaro was not a credible witness and assails the value assigned by the Court to the evidence of the defense. In other words, private complainant wants the Court to review the evidence anew and render another judgment based on such a re-evaluation. This is not constitutionally allowed as it is merely a repeated attempt to secure Webb, et als conviction. The judgment acquitting Webb, et al is final and can no longer be disturbed.

You might also like