Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 139 views

    Joseph Vs Villaluz - Rule 119 Sec 19

    Uploaded by

    Rolan Jeff Amoloza Lancion
    This document summarizes a criminal case involving multiple charges of rape against six petitioners. After the prosecution presented its evidence, the petitioners filed a motion to quash the complaint, which was denied by the respondent judge. The petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. The issue is whether the petitioners should be granted separate trials for the charges against each of them. The court held that separate trials should be granted, as trying all petitioners jointly risks evidence against one prejudicing the others, given the serious nature of the capital offenses with which they are charged.

    Copyright:

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

    Joseph Vs Villaluz - Rule 119 Sec 19

    Uploaded by

    Rolan Jeff Amoloza Lancion
    139 views1 page
    This document summarizes a criminal case involving multiple charges of rape against six petitioners. After the prosecution presented its evidence, the petitioners filed a motion to quash the complaint, which was denied by the respondent judge. The petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. The issue is whether the petitioners should be granted separate trials for the charges against each of them. The court held that separate trials should be granted, as trying all petitioners jointly risks evidence against one prejudicing the others, given the serious nature of the capital offenses with which they are charged.

    Original Title

    Joseph vs Villaluz- Rule 119 Sec 19

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a criminal case involving multiple charges of rape against six petitioners. After the prosecution presented its evidence, the petitioners filed a motion to quash the complaint, which was denied by the respondent judge. The petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. The issue is whether the petitioners should be granted separate trials for the charges against each of them. The court held that separate trials should be granted, as trying all petitioners jointly risks evidence against one prejudicing the others, given the serious nature of the capital offenses with which they are charged.

    Copyright:

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

    Joseph Vs Villaluz - Rule 119 Sec 19

    Uploaded by

    Rolan Jeff Amoloza Lancion
    This document summarizes a criminal case involving multiple charges of rape against six petitioners. After the prosecution presented its evidence, the petitioners filed a motion to quash the complaint, which was denied by the respondent judge. The petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. The issue is whether the petitioners should be granted separate trials for the charges against each of them. The court held that separate trials should be granted, as trying all petitioners jointly risks evidence against one prejudicing the others, given the serious nature of the capital offenses with which they are charged.

    Copyright:

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

    Rule 119 Sec 19

    Joseph vs Villaluz
    Facts

    The petitioners, James Joseph, Miguel Romulo, Antonio Santamaria, Ramon Ignacio Moran,
    Eugenio Lopez III, and Jaime Claparols Jr., were charged by Noemi L. Garcia with the crime of
    multiple rape.
    The petitioners Jaime Claparols, Jr. and Ramon Ignacio Moran were also charged with another
    offense of multiple rape by the same complainant before the Court of First Instance of Rizal.
    Upon arraignment, the accused-petitioners entered a plea of not guilty in both cases. A joint
    trial on the merits of both cases of all the accused was commenced and the prosecution
    presented its evidence.
    After the prosecution had completed the presentation of its evidence in chief, the petitioners
    filed a motion to quash the complaint.
    The respondent judge denied the motions of the petitioners.
    The motion for reconsideration of the petitioners of the order denying the Motions to
    Dismiss/Acquit was likewise denied by the respondent Judge.

    Issue:
    WON the accused-petitioners should be granted with a separate trial for the charges filed against them.
    Held:
    YES

    The respondent Judge did not disregard any constitutional right of the petitioners.
    The Court cannot decide in this special civil action whether or not the evidence adduced by the
    prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the petitioners.
    In the absence of a clear knowing that the respondent Judge has committed a grave abuse of
    discretion or acted in excess of jurisdiction, this Court will not annul an interlocutory order
    denying a motion to dismiss a criminal case.
    The granting of a separate trial when two or more defendant are jointly barged with an offense
    is discretionary with the trial court.
    The cause of the State would not be jeopardized by the granting of separate trials to the
    accused. Inasmuch as the petitioners are said with capital offenses, great care should be taken
    the evidence of one should not prejudice the others.

    You might also like