PEOPLE v.

LAGUIO
G.R. No.128587 / MAR 16, 2007 / GARCIA, J./CRIMPRO FINALITY OF
ACQUITTAL/PSPAMBID

NATURE
Petition for Certiorari seeking to set aside Resolution of
the RTC
PETITIONERS
People of the Philippines
RESPONDENTS
Hon. Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr. as Presiding Judge and
Lawrence Wang y Chen, et al.
SUMMARY. Hon. Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr., issued the assailed Resolution
granting Lawrence Wangs Demurrer to Evidence and acquitting him of all
charges for lack of evidence. The prosecution seeks to set aside the
resolution, rejected by the SC because the prosecution only raised a
question of law.
DOCTRINE. The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a judgment of
acquittal is final and unappealable. The right of the People to appeal is
expressly made subject to the prohibition against putting the accused in
double jeopardy.
FACTS.

RTC granted Lawrence C. Wangs Demurrer to Evidence, acquitting

him of 3 charges filed against him (Violation of Dangerous Drugs
Act, Illegal Possession of Firearms and COMELEC Gun Ban)
o Joseph Junio and Redentor Teck (unimportant ppl) were
arrested while they were about to hand over a bag of
shabu to a police officer. When questioned, the two told the
officers that there will be a scheduled delivery of shabu by
their employer Wang,and described the place where he can
be found and that was in an apartment building in Malate
Manila. Wang was placed under surveillance.
o When Wang came out of the apartment, two officers
approached him, introduced themselves as police officers,
and asked him his name. Upon hearing that he is Wang, he
was immediately frisked and asked him to open the back
compartment of the car. The officers found an unlicensed
firearm in his pocket, and shabu, cash, electronic and
mechanical scales, and another unlicensed firearm in the
compartment. Wang resisted the arrest.

On 9 January 1997, Wang filed his undated Demurrer to Evidence,

praying for his acquittal and the dismissal of the cases against him
for lack of a valid arrest and search warrants and the
inadmissibility of the prosecutions evidence against him.

On 13 March 1997,the Hon. Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr., issued the

assailed Resolution granting Wangs Demurrer to Evidence and
acquitting him of all charges for lack of evidence.
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. Whether the prosecution may appeal the trial courts resolution
granting Wangs demurrer to evidence and acquitting him of all

the charges against him without violating the constitutional

proscription against double jeopardy 1. NO.

Although Section 2, Rule 122 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure

states that any party may appeal, the right of the People to
appeal is, in the very same provision, expressly made
subject to the prohibition against putting the accused in
double jeopardy.

Appeal in criminal cases throws the whole records of the case wide
open for review by the appellate court, that is why any appeal from
a judgment of acquittal necessarily puts the accused in double
jeopardy.

An order granting an accuseds demurrer to evidence is a

resolution of the case on the merits, and it amounts to an acquittal.
Generally, any further prosecution of the accused after an acquittal
would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.

Exception: when the prosecution is denied due process of law

o Where the prosecution is deprived of a fair
opportunity to prosecute and prove its case, its
right to due process is thereby violated.
o But the prosecution in this case raised a pure question of
law under rule 45, and not on rule 65.
2. [OBITER] WON there was a valid arrest. NO.

There was no suspicious behavior on the part of Wang that would

reasonably invite the attention of the police. He was merely
walking from the apartment and was about to enter a car parked
when the officers arrested him.

Absence of any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the

presence and within the view of the officers, is not sufficient to
constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto
arrest.

DECISION.
Petition DENIED.

1 Double jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c)
after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused