Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

 

Home of Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

www.chanrobles.com

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-46771. March 7, 1984.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and LUCIA BASAN, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE MARCELINO M. FRANCISCO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao del Sur, GODOFREDO CABAHUG and BENEDICTA CENIZA, Respondents.

Isidro M. Bajo, for Petitioners.

Honrado S. Hermosisima for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; DUE PROCESS OBSERVED IN CASE AT BAR. — True it is that the Demurrer to Evidence did not have a notice of hearing. However, the petitioners were furnished a copy thereof and in fact they filed an Opposition. The claim of denial of due process is, therefore, without basis. Neither were the petitioners denied due process when the respondent judge did not consider the evidence mentioned in the Opposition to the demurrer for such evidence was not formally presented.

2. ID.; ID.; DOUBLE JEOPARDY; REOPENING OF CASE WOULD VIOLATE ACCUSED’S RIGHT AGAINST THE SAME. — To reopen the case will place the private respondents in double jeopardy for assuming arguendo that the respondent judge had committed a mistake, the error does not vitiate the decision considering that he had jurisdiction over the case.


R E S O L U T I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


This is a petition to set aside the decision of the respondent judge in a criminal case for concubinage. The decision acquitted the accused, the private respondents, on a demurrer to the evidence after the prosecution had rested its case.

The petitioners claim that they were denied due process because the Demurrer to Evidence did not have a notice of hearing.

True it is that the Demurrer to Evidence did not have a notice of hearing. However, the petitioners were furnished a copy thereof and in fact they filed an Opposition. The claim of denial of due process is, therefore, without basis. Neither were the petitioners denied due process when the respondent judge did not consider the evidence mentioned in the Opposition to the demurrer for such evidence was not formally presented.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Moreover, to reopen the case will place the private respondents in double jeopardy for assuming arguendo that the respondent judge had committed a mistake, the error does not vitiate the decision considering that he had jurisdiction over the case. (City Fiscal of Cebu v. Kintanar, L-31842, April 30, 1970, 32 SCRA 601.).

WHEREFORE, in accordance with the recommendation of the Solicitor General who represents the People of the Philippines in criminal cases, the instant petition is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.

HomeJurisprudenceSupreme Court Decisions1962 : Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsDecember 1962 : Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsTop of Page