Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Chiok VS People

    Uploaded by

    Lei Tacang
    12 views3 pages

    Original Title

    CHIOK VS PEOPLE

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    12 views3 pages

    Chiok VS People

    Uploaded by

    Lei Tacang

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    1.

    CHIOK VS PEOPLE

    Chiok was charged with estafa, defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the
    Revised Penal Code

    The RTC convicted Chiok of


    the crime of estafa. Chiok filed
    a Motion
    for Reconsideration of the RTC
    conviction but was denied.
    The CA in a Special
    Division of Five rendered a
    Decision reversing and
    setting aside the
    Decision of the trial court, and
    acquitted Chiok for failure of
    the prosecution to prove his
    guilt
    beyond reasonable doubt.
    The RTC convicted Chiok of
    the crime of estafa. Chiok filed
    a Motion
    for Reconsideration of the RTC
    conviction but was denied.
    The CA in a Special
    Division of Five rendered a
    Decision reversing and
    setting aside the
    Decision of the trial court, and
    acquitted Chiok for failure of
    the prosecution to prove his
    guilt
    beyond reasonable doubt.
    The RTC, in an omnibus order denied Chiok's motion for reconsideration. The OSG did not file a
    motion for reconsideration on the ground of double jeopardy. Chua, on the other hand, filed a motion
    for reconsideration
     the CA denied Chua's motion for reconsideration and its supplement on the ground that acquittal is
    immediately final and the re-examination of the record of the case would violate the guarantee
    against double jeopardy. 

    I. Whether or not Chua has a legal personality to file and prosecute this petition.

    II. Whether or not the case is an exception to the rule on finality of acquittal and the doctrine of
    double jeopardy.

    III. Whether or not Chiok is civilly liable to Chua.

    I. Chua lacks the legal personality to file this petition. Chua lacks the personality or legal
    standing to question the CA Decision because it is only the OSG, on behalf of the State, which can
    bring actions in criminal proceedings before this Court and the CA.

    The rationale behind this rule is that in a criminal case, the party affected by the dismissal of the
    criminal action is the State and not the private complainant.  The interest of the private complainant
    44

    or the private offended party is limited only to the civil liability.

    II. The appeal from the judgment of acquittal will place Chiok in double jeopardy. In order to
    give life to the rule on double jeopardy, our rules on criminal proceedings require that a judgment of
    acquittal, whether ordered by the trial or the appellate court, is final, unappealable, and immediately
    executory upon its promulgation

    Chua assails the acquittal of Chiok on two grounds. First, the first jeopardy did not attach because
    the CA did not have jurisdiction over the appeal; Chiok having lost his right to appeal when the CA
    found him to have jumped bail. Second assuming that the first jeopardy attached, the circumstances
    of this case is an exception to the rule on double jeopardy.

    III. Chiok is civilly liable to Chua in the amount of ₱9,563,900.00. There is also no merit in
    Chiok's claim that his absolution from civil liability in the BP 22 case involving the same transaction
    bars civil liability in this estafa case under the doctrine of res judicata in the concept of
    "conclusiveness of judgment."

    the principle of res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment presupposes that facts and
    issues were actually and directly resolved in a previous case. The basis or Chiok's acquittal therein
    is the prosecution's failure to show that a notice of dishonor was first given to Chiok. 

    You might also like