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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 93 views

    Miranda v. Tuliao

    Uploaded by

    Aphr
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that there is no double jeopardy in reinstating a criminal case against petitioners Jose C. Miranda, PO3 Romeo B. Ocon, and SPO3 Alberto P. Dalmacio. The criminal case was initially dismissed before arraignment by a regional trial court judge. However, new evidence emerged in the form of a sworn confession by a police officer implicating the petitioners in the 1996 murders of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao. The Court of Appeals then ordered the criminal cases reinstated, which petitioners appealed claiming double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, finding that no double jeopardy occurs

    Copyright:

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

    Miranda v. Tuliao

    Uploaded by

    Aphr
    93 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that there is no double jeopardy in reinstating a criminal case against petitioners Jose C. Miranda, PO3 Romeo B. Ocon, and SPO3 Alberto P. Dalmacio. The criminal case was initially dismissed before arraignment by a regional trial court judge. However, new evidence emerged in the form of a sworn confession by a police officer implicating the petitioners in the 1996 murders of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao. The Court of Appeals then ordered the criminal cases reinstated, which petitioners appealed claiming double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, finding that no double jeopardy occurs

    Original Title

    13. Miranda v. Tuliao

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that there is no double jeopardy in reinstating a criminal case against petitioners Jose C. Miranda, PO3 Romeo B. Ocon, and SPO3 Alberto P. Dalmacio. The criminal case was initially dismissed before arraignment by a regional trial court judge. However, new evidence emerged in the form of a sworn confession by a police officer implicating the petitioners in the 1996 murders of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao. The Court of Appeals then ordered the criminal cases reinstated, which petitioners appealed claiming double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, finding that no double jeopardy occurs

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    93 views2 pages

    Miranda v. Tuliao

    Uploaded by

    Aphr
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that there is no double jeopardy in reinstating a criminal case against petitioners Jose C. Miranda, PO3 Romeo B. Ocon, and SPO3 Alberto P. Dalmacio. The criminal case was initially dismissed before arraignment by a regional trial court judge. However, new evidence emerged in the form of a sworn confession by a police officer implicating the petitioners in the 1996 murders of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao. The Court of Appeals then ordered the criminal cases reinstated, which petitioners appealed claiming double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, finding that no double jeopardy occurs

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    USA College of Law

    DUAZO 1-F

    Case Name Miranda vs Tuliao


    Topic Double Jeopardy
    Case No. | Date GR No. 158763 I March 31, 2006
    Ponente CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
    Doctrine There is no double jeopardy in the reinstatement of a criminal case dismissed before
    arraignment.

    RELEVANT FACTS:

     On 8 March 1996, two burnt cadavers were discovered in Purok Nibulan, Ramon, Isabela, which were later
    identified as the dead bodies of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of private respondent Virgilio Tuliao.
    Two information of murder were filed against police officers, one of which (SPO2 Maderal) remained at
    large during the trial.

     The RTC convicted said accused personnel and sentenced reclusion pertua. The Supreme Court, on
    automatic review, reversed the decision and acquitted the police officers based on reasonable doubts.

     Sometime in September 1999, SPO2 Maderal was arrested. On 27 April 2001, he executed a sworn
    confession and identified petitioners Jose C. Miranda, PO3 Romeo B. Ocon, and SPO3 Alberto P. Dalmacio,
    a certain Boyet dela Cruz and Amado Doe, as the persons responsible for the deaths of
    Vicente Bauzon and ElizerTuliao.

     Respondent Tuliao filed a criminal complaint for murder against petitioners, Boyet dela Cruz,


    and Amado Doe, and submitted the sworn confession of SPO2 Maderal. On 25 June 2001, Acting Presiding
    Judge Wilfredo Tumaliuan issued warrants of arrest against petitioners and SPO2 Maderal.

     On 29 June 2001, petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary investigation, to reinvestigate,
    and to recall and/or quash the warrants of arrest. The petition was denied by Judge Tumaliuan on the ground
    of the absence of petitioners, thus, the court did not acquired jurisdiction over them.

     On 17 August 2001, Judge Anghad took over the case and ordered the cancellation of the warrant of arrest.
    Respondent file a petition praying that a temporary restraining order be issued to enjoin Judge Anghad to
    form proceeding with the case. Two days after the Resolution of the Court granting the prayer of respondent,
    Judge Anghad dismissed the two Informations for murder against petitioner.

     On 25 October 2001, respondent Tuliao filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition with this
    Court.

     On 18 December 2002, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision granting the petition and ordering
    the reinstatement of the criminal cases in the RTC of Santiago City, as well as the issuance of warrants of
    arrest against petitioners and SPO2 Maderal.

     Petitioners claim that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in ordering the reinstatement of
    Criminal Cases, alleging that the order of dismissal issued therein had become final and executory.

    ISSUE:Whether or not double jeopardy would attach


    RULING:
    NO.
    In any case, the reinstatement of a criminal case dismissed before arraignment does not constitute double
    jeopardy.  Double jeopardy cannot be invoked where the accused has not been arraigned and it was upon his
    express motion that the case was dismissed.
    USA College of Law
    DUAZO 1-F

    RULING:
    The petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 18 December 2002 is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification
    that the Criminal Cases be transferred to and raffled in the Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila.

    You might also like