Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    Salcedo v. Mendoza

    Uploaded by

    Ridzanna Abdulgafur
    Leopoldo Salcedo was charged with reckless imprudence. The trial was postponed multiple times due to the prosecution not being ready. Salcedo then moved to dismiss the case, citing violation of his right to a speedy trial. The judge granted the dismissal. However, the judge later set aside the dismissal and revived the case. Salcedo appealed, arguing this violated his right against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court ruled that the initial dismissal due to a speedy trial violation was equivalent to an acquittal. Reviving the case placed Salcedo in double jeopardy, violating the Constitution. The petition was granted.

    Copyright:

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

    Salcedo v. Mendoza

    Uploaded by

    Ridzanna Abdulgafur
    45 views1 page
    Leopoldo Salcedo was charged with reckless imprudence. The trial was postponed multiple times due to the prosecution not being ready. Salcedo then moved to dismiss the case, citing violation of his right to a speedy trial. The judge granted the dismissal. However, the judge later set aside the dismissal and revived the case. Salcedo appealed, arguing this violated his right against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court ruled that the initial dismissal due to a speedy trial violation was equivalent to an acquittal. Reviving the case placed Salcedo in double jeopardy, violating the Constitution. The petition was granted.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Leopoldo Salcedo was charged with reckless imprudence. The trial was postponed multiple times due to the prosecution not being ready. Salcedo then moved to dismiss the case, citing violation of his right to a speedy trial. The judge granted the dismissal. However, the judge later set aside the dismissal and revived the case. Salcedo appealed, arguing this violated his right against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court ruled that the initial dismissal due to a speedy trial violation was equivalent to an acquittal. Reviving the case placed Salcedo in double jeopardy, violating the Constitution. The petition was granted.

    Copyright:

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

    Salcedo v. Mendoza

    Uploaded by

    Ridzanna Abdulgafur
    Leopoldo Salcedo was charged with reckless imprudence. The trial was postponed multiple times due to the prosecution not being ready. Salcedo then moved to dismiss the case, citing violation of his right to a speedy trial. The judge granted the dismissal. However, the judge later set aside the dismissal and revived the case. Salcedo appealed, arguing this violated his right against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court ruled that the initial dismissal due to a speedy trial violation was equivalent to an acquittal. Reviving the case placed Salcedo in double jeopardy, violating the Constitution. The petition was granted.

    Copyright:

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

    161. LEOPOLDO SALCEDO V. HON. JUDGE FILEMON H.

    MENDOZA & PEOPLE

    FACTS: Leopoldo Salcedo was charged with reckless imprudence. The trial was scheduled but it was postponed
    upon motion of the prosecution. Then the trial was again postponed due to the absence of Salcedo. The trial
    was again was reset but again, no trial proceeded because no fiscal was present. This time, the accused,
    through Atty. Edgardo Aceron, invoking the right of the accused to speedy trial, moved for the dismissal of the
    case against Salcedo which was then granted by the respondent Judge. On the same day, the prosecution filed
    a motion for reconsideration but was denied. The prosecution filed a 2nd motion for reconsideration and the
    judge set the hearing. After trial, the trial judge issued an order directing both parties to submit their
    respective pleadings within 5 days. Both parties failed to comply with such order. Nevertheless, Judge
    Mendoza issued an order setting aside its previous order dismissing the criminal case against Salcedo. Hence,
    Salcedo appealed before the SC saying that the dismissal of the case against him is considered as an acquittal
    and thus the revival of the case would place him in double jeopardy. This contention was supported by the
    OSG.

    ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A VIOLATUON OF SALCEDO’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AGAINST
    DOUBLE JEOPARDY

    RULING: Yes. The respondent Judge dismissed the case, upon the motion of the petitioner invoking his
    constitutional right to speedy trial, because the prosecution failed to appear on the day of the trial after it had
    previously been postponed twice. The effect of such dismissal is a dismiss predicated on the right of the
    accused to speedy trial upon his own motion or express consent, amounts to an acquittal which will bar
    another prosecution of the accused for the same offense. This is an exception to the rule that a dismissal
    upon the motion or with the express consent of the accused will not be a bar to the subsequent prosecution
    of the accused for the same offense as provided for in Section 9, Rule 113 of the ROC. The moment the
    dismissal of a criminal case is predicated on the right of the accused to speedy trial even if it is upon his own
    motion or express consent, such dismissal is equivalent to acquittal and any attempt to prosecute the
    accused for the same offense will violate the constitutional prohibition that "no person shall be twice put in
    jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.

    THE PETITION IS GRANTED BECAUSE THE REVIVAL OF THE CASE AGAINST HIM PLACED HIM IN DOUBLE
    JEOPARDY.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy