Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by way of petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raising pure questions of law. Certiorari under Rule 65 is not the remedy (People vs. Espinosa, G.R. Nos. 153714-20, August 15, 2003).
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
The DNA test availed of by a person already convicted under a final and executory judgment is termed "post-conviction" DNA testing. The Rules on DNA Evidence allows a post-conviction DNA testing. It may be available to (a) prosecution, or (b) to the person convicted by a final and executory judgment provided that the following requirements are met: (a) a biological sample exists; (b) such sample is relevant to the case; and (c) the testing would probably result in the several of the judgment of conviction (Sec. 6, Rules on DNA Evidence). The remedy available to the convict if the result of the post-conviction DNA testing is favorable to him includes: (a) filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin; (b) the court shall conduct a hearing and in case the court finds that the petition is meritorious, it shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict, unless his detention is justified for a lawful cause (Section 10, Rules on DNA Evidence).
Posted by Christian G. Villasis at 9:45 AM
Monday, July 21, 2014
The provision provides that where the penalty imposed by the RTC is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, an appeal is made directly to this Court by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. On the other hand, a case where the penalty imposed is death will be automatically reviewed by the Court without a need for filing a notice of appeal. However, People vs. Mateo G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004 modified these rules by providing an intermediate review of the cases by the CA where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death. Pursuant to Mateo’s ruling, the Court issued A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC 2004-10-12, amending the pertinent rules governing review of death penalty cases. Also affecting the rules on appeal is the enactment of Republic Act No. (RA) 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines, which took effect on June 29, 2006. Under Sec. 2 of RA 9346, the imposition of the death penalty is prohibited, and in lieu thereof, it imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); or life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC. Consequently, in the provisions of the Rules of Court on appeals, death penalty cases are no longer operational. It is a settled rule that substantiated factual findings of the appellate court, affirming those of the trial court, are conclusive on the parties and may not be reviewed on appeal. (People vs. Abon G.R. No. 169245 February 15, 2008 Velasco, Jr., J.)
Posted by Christian G. Villasis at 1:28 PM
Friday, July 18, 2014
A prejudicial question is defined as: x x x one that arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. (JOSELITO R. PIMENTEL V. MARIA CHRYSANTINE L. PIMENTEL & PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 172060, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010, CARPIO, J.).
Posted by Christian G. Villasis at 12:34 PM