This picture shows a photo of the "Piston 6".
The six jeepney drivers who were arrested in 2020 for protesting against the government's restrictions on their livelihood during the lockdown have been acquitted by the court.
The six jeepney drivers who were arrested in 2020 for protesting against the government's restrictions on their livelihood during the lockdown have been acquitted by the Caloocan Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) Branch 83.
The Caloocan MTC, through Judge Marlo Bermejo Campanilla, granted the demurrer to evidence filed by the “Piston 6,” acquitting them of simple resistance and disobedience to authority, a charge under the Revised Penal Code.
Granting a demurrer to evidence is equivalent to an acquittal resulting from the court's examination, which determines that there is insufficient evidence following the filing of a demurrer.
It could be recalled that they were arrested in June 2020 while holding a peaceful protest in Caloocan City.
Related
GRANT OF DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE, EFFECT
"Once a demurrer to evidence has been granted in a criminal case, the grant amounts to an acquittal. Any further prosecution for the same offense would violate the accused's constitutional right against double jeopardy."
RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Under Article III, Section 21 of the Constitution, all persons have the right not to be placed in double jeopardy of punishment for one offense:
"SECTION 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act."
This Court has held that once a demurrer to evidence has been granted in a criminal case, the grant amounts to an acquittal, and any further prosecution for the same offense would violate Article III, Section 21 of the Constitution.69 In People v. Sandiganbayan:70
Under Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, the trial court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence upon a demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court. Thus, in resolving the accused's demurrer to evidence, the court is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or support a verdict of guilt.
The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of discretion. Significantly, once the court grants the demurrer, such order amounts to an acquittal; and any further prosecution of the accused would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy. This constitutes an exception to the rule that the dismissal of a criminal case made with the express consent of the accused or upon his own motion bars a plea of double jeopardy.71 (Citations omitted)
The only time when assailing the grant of a demurrer to evidence will not violate the right against double jeopardy is when the trial court is shown to have gravely abused its discretion, such that the prosecution's right to due process was violated, denying it the opportunity to present its case.72 The petitioner must prove that the trial court
"blatantly abused its authority to apoint so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice."73
Read the full story
SUGGESTED READINGS
FOLLOW US!
❤️ SUPPORT
⚖️ BLOG
🛒 SHOP
Comments