LORD COKE DOCTRINE

The Lord Coke Doctrine purports that when a man is once fairly found not guilty upon any
indictment, or other prosecution before any court of competent jurisdiction of the offense,
he may plead such acquittal in bar of any accusation for the same crime.
ILLUSTRATIONS:
In the case of Mijares v Ranada, the Supreme Court stated that in Section 48, Rule
39, the actionable issues are generally restricted to a review of jurisdiction of the
foreign court, the service of personal notice, collusion, fraud, or mistake of fact or
law. The limitations on review is in consonance with a strong and pervasive policy
in all legal systems to limit repetitive litigation on claims and issues. Otherwise
known as the policy of preclusion, it seeks to protect party expectations resulting
from previous litigation, to safeguard against the harassment of defendants, to
insure that the task of courts not be increased by never-ending litigation of the same
disputes, and — in a larger sense — to promote what Lord Coke in the Ferrer's Case
of 1599 stated to be the goal of all law: "rest and quietness." 33 If every judgment of
a foreign court were reviewable on the merits, the plaintiff would be forced back on
his/her original cause of action, rendering immaterial the previously concluded
litigation. [Mijares v. Ranada, G.R. No. 139325, April 12, 2005]
In the case of People v Velasco, the Supreme Court ruled that for insufficiency of
evidence, private respondent Honorato Galvez was acquitted in the cases for
murder and frustrated of murder. As mandated by the Constitution, statutes and
cognate jurisprudence, an acquittal is final and unappealable on the ground of
double jeopardy, whether it happens the at the trial court level or before the Court
of Appeals. Thus, the rule is that a judgment of acquittal brought before the Supreme
Court on certiorari cannot be had unless there is a finding of mistrial as in the case
of Galman v. Sandiganbayan. In the instant case, the petition for certiorari seeks the
nullity of the decision of the respondent judge acquitting the accused. However, the
questioned decision showed that respondent judge considered and passed upon the
evidence received at the trial. Thus, this exempts the act from the writ's limiting
requirement of excess or lack of jurisdiction. Errors of judgment are not to be
confused with errors in the exercise of jurisdiction. [People v. Velasco, G.R. No.
127444, September 13, 2000]