a. When Accused is Acquitted

Exceptions

• A party may not appeal if the accused will be placed in double jeopardy (Rule 122, Sec. 1)

HENCE, the prosecution cannot appeal from a judgment of acquittal because a verdict of that nature is immediately final and to try him on the merits, even in an appellate court, is to put him a second time in jeopardy for the same offense. (Central Bank of the Phils. v. CA, G.R. No. 41859, 1989)

• If the judgment is for conviction and the accused fails to appear without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these Rules against the judgment. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies, upon showing that his absence was for a justifiable cause. (Rule 120, Sec. 6)

Despite acquittal, however, either the offended party or the accused may appeal, but only with respect to the civil aspect of the decision. Or, said judgment of acquittal may be assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court showing that the lower court, in acquitting the accused, committed not merely reversible errors of judgment, but also exercised grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or a denial of due process, thereby rendering the assailed judgment null and void. If there is grave abuse of discretion, granting petitioner’s prayer is not tantamount to putting private respondents in double jeopardy. (AAA v. CA, G.R. No. 183652, 2015)

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 Court in People v. Bocar rationalized that 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. (People v. Hon. Velasco, G.R. 127444, 2000)

In the case of the People of the Philippines, only the State, through its appellate counsel, the Office of the Solicitor General, has the sole right and authority to institute proceedings before the CA or SC. (Carino v. De Castro, G.R. No. 176084, 2008)

A Judgment of ACQUITTAL Must Contain:

• Whether the evidence absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt;
• If the act or omission from which civil liability may arise did not exist