Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4K views

    People V Velasco

    Uploaded by

    Maria Louissa Pantua Ayson
    This case involves a shooting incident in San Ildefonso, Bulacan that resulted in one death and two injuries. Three criminal charges were initially filed against the mayor, Honorato Galvez, and his alleged bodyguard, Godofredo Diego, but were later upgraded. The trial court found Diego guilty of murder and double frustrated murder but acquitted Galvez, finding insufficient evidence. The government challenged Galvez's acquittal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a review of a judgment of acquittal is not permissible under the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. For an appeal of an acquittal to be allowed, it must involve questions of law rather than a review of the evidence, as an

    Copyright:

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

    People V Velasco

    Uploaded by

    Maria Louissa Pantua Ayson
    4K views3 pages
    This case involves a shooting incident in San Ildefonso, Bulacan that resulted in one death and two injuries. Three criminal charges were initially filed against the mayor, Honorato Galvez, and his alleged bodyguard, Godofredo Diego, but were later upgraded. The trial court found Diego guilty of murder and double frustrated murder but acquitted Galvez, finding insufficient evidence. The government challenged Galvez's acquittal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a review of a judgment of acquittal is not permissible under the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. For an appeal of an acquittal to be allowed, it must involve questions of law rather than a review of the evidence, as an

    Original Description:

    political law - double jeopardy

    Original Title

    People v Velasco

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a shooting incident in San Ildefonso, Bulacan that resulted in one death and two injuries. Three criminal charges were initially filed against the mayor, Honorato Galvez, and his alleged bodyguard, Godofredo Diego, but were later upgraded. The trial court found Diego guilty of murder and double frustrated murder but acquitted Galvez, finding insufficient evidence. The government challenged Galvez's acquittal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a review of a judgment of acquittal is not permissible under the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. For an appeal of an acquittal to be allowed, it must involve questions of law rather than a review of the evidence, as an

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    4K views3 pages

    People V Velasco

    Uploaded by

    Maria Louissa Pantua Ayson
    This case involves a shooting incident in San Ildefonso, Bulacan that resulted in one death and two injuries. Three criminal charges were initially filed against the mayor, Honorato Galvez, and his alleged bodyguard, Godofredo Diego, but were later upgraded. The trial court found Diego guilty of murder and double frustrated murder but acquitted Galvez, finding insufficient evidence. The government challenged Galvez's acquittal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a review of a judgment of acquittal is not permissible under the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. For an appeal of an acquittal to be allowed, it must involve questions of law rather than a review of the evidence, as an

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    People v.

    Velasco
    G.R. No. 127444

    13 September 2000

    There was a shooting in San Ildefonso, Bulacan. The shooting claimed


    the life of Alex Vinculado and seriously injured his twin brother Levi.
    Their uncle, Miguel Vinculado, Jr. was also shot. Three (3) criminal
    Informations - one (1) for homicide and two (2) for frustrated homicide
    were initially filed against Honorato Galvez, Mayor of San Ildefonso,
    and Godofredo Diego, the alleged bodyguard of the mayor. However,
    the charges were withdrawn and a new set was filed against the same
    accused upgrading the crimes to murder and frustrated murder. Mayor
    Galvez was charged, in addition, with violation of PD 1866 for
    unauthorized carrying of firearm outside his residence.
    The trial court found the accused Godofredo Diego guilty beyond
    reasonable doubt of the crimes of murder and double frustrated
    murder. However, it acquitted Mayor Honorato Galvez of the same
    charges due to insufficiency of evidence. It also absolved him from the
    charge of illegal carrying of firearm upon its finding that the act was
    not a violation of law.
    The acquittal of accused Honorato Galvez was challenged by the
    Government before this Court in a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
    of the Rules of Court. Allegedly, in holding in favor of Galvez, the judge
    deliberately and wrongfully disregarded certain facts and evidence on
    record which, if judiciously considered, would have led to a finding of
    guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner proposes that
    this patently gross judicial indiscretion and arbitrariness should be
    rectified by a re-examination of the evidence by the Court upon a
    determination that a review of the case will not transgress the
    constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. It is urged that this is
    necessary because the judgment of acquittal should be nullified and
    substituted with a verdict of guilt.
    Petitioner invokes the constitutional doctrine in the United States that
    the Double Jeopardy Clause permits a review of acquittals decreed by
    US trial magistrates where, as in this case, no retrial is required should
    judgment be overturned. Since Philippine concepts on double jeopardy
    have been sourced from American constitutional principles, statutes
    and jurisprudence, particularly the case of Kepner v. United States and
    because similarly in this jurisdiction a retrial does not follow in the
    event an acquittal on appeal is reversed, double jeopardy should also
    be allowed to take the same directional course.
    ISSUES

    - Whether a review by the Supreme Court of a judgment of acquittal in


    light of the constitutional interdict against double jeopardy is
    permissible
    HELD/RATIO
    NO. It must be explained that under existing American law and
    jurisprudence, appeals may be had not only from criminal convictions
    but also, in some limited instances, from dismissals of criminal
    charges, sometimes loosely termed "acquittals." But this is so as long
    as the judgments of dismissals do not involve determination of
    evidence. It must involve questions of law or matters unrelated to a
    factual resolution of the case which consequently, on appeal, will not
    involve a review of evidence.
    United States v. Scott positively spelled out that if an acquittal was
    based on an appreciation of the evidence adduced, no appeal would
    lie. In the case at bar, the records show that respondent trial judge
    based his finding of acquittal, no matter how erroneous it might seem
    to petitioner, upon the evidence presented by both parties. The
    judgment here was no less than a factual resolution of the case.
    The doctrine that an appeal of a judgment after the defendant had
    been acquitted by the court in a bench trial is a new trial, is applicable
    in this case.
    Requisites for invoking double jeopardy:
    (a) a valid complaint or information;
    (b) before a competent court before which the same is filed;
    (c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and,
    (d) the defendant was acquitted, or convicted, or the case against him
    dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
    It bears repeating that where acquittal is concerned, the rules do not
    distinguish whether it occurs at the level of the trial court or on appeal
    from a judgment of conviction. This firmly establishes the finality-ofacquittal rule in our jurisdiction. Therefore, as mandated by our laws
    and jurisprudence, an acquittal is final and unappealable on the ground
    of double jeopardy, whether it happens at the trial court level or before
    the Court of Appeals.
    In general, the rule is that a remand to a trial court of a judgment of
    acquittal brought before the Supreme Court on certiorari cannot be had
    unless there is a finding of mistrial. The doctrine that "double jeopardy
    may not be invoked after trial" may apply only when the Court finds
    that the criminal trial was a sham because the prosecution
    representing the sovereign people in the criminal case was denied due

    process. The "remand of the criminal case for further hearing and/or
    trial before the lower courts amounts merely to a continuation of the
    first jeopardy, and does not expose the accused to a second jeopardy.
    *Sir said: Acquittal must be valid an error of jurisdiction is the only
    valid ground for review. If appeal is based on error of judgment, it will
    amount to double jeopardy.

    You might also like