Case doctrine:
The requisites for invoking double jeopardy are the following:
1. a valid complaint or information;
2. before a competent court before which the same is filed;
3. the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and,
4. the defendant was acquitted, or convicted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
However, there are exceptions on the rule on double jeopardy, and these are:
1) Where there has been deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a mistrial, or
2) Where there has been a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances.
Facts:
Under the Revised Penal Code, Lino Alejandro y Pimentel was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of raping a 12-year old AAA. testified that Pimentel followed her, grabbed her, and brought her to the back of a school. There, accused-appellant removed AAA's shorts and t-shirt, laid on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina.
Two months later, accused-appellant went inside AAA's house through a window one night, undressed himself and AAA, and inserted his penis inside her vagina. On both occasions, accused-appellant threatened to kill AAA if she told anybody what had happened.
AAA eventually told her mother, BBB, about the incident. BBB brought her to the Municipal Health Office where she was examined by Dr. CCC. Dr. CCC testified that she found, among others, deep, healed, old and superficial lacerations in the hymen of AAA and concluded that these indicated positive sexual intercourse. Accused-appellant, through his counsel, manifested in open court that he would no longer present any evidence for the defense and submitted the case for decision. RTC promulgated a Decision acquitting the accused-appellant.
On the same day, however, the RTC recalled. Accused-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration... arguing that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and can neither be withdrawn nor modified, because to do so would place an accused-appellant in double jeopardy. RTC denied the motion. Accused-appellant appealed to the CA. CA dismissed the appeal and held that the RTC's Order of recalling and setting aside the judgment of acquittal was justified.
Issue:
Whether or not Pimentel will be held in double jeopardy due to the mistake decision of the trial court.
Ruling:
In our jurisdiction, we adhere to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable.
There was a valid information for two counts of rape over which the RTC had jurisdiction and to which the accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty. After the trial, a judgment of acquittal was thereafter rendered and promulgated.
What is peculiar in this case is that a judgment of acquittal was rendered based on the mistaken notion that the private complainant failed to testify; allegedly because of the mix-up of orders with a different case involving the same accused-appellant. This, however, does not change the fact that a judgment of acquittal had already been promulgated.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules should have been filed. A judgment of acquittal may only be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules.
If the petition, regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary review of the findings of the court a quo, the constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy would be violated.
In this case, the RTC was reminded of the fact that private complainant AAA testified during the trial, only after it had already rendered and promulgated the judgment of acquittal. The RTC then realized that had AAA's testimony been taken into account, the case would have had a different outcome. Consequently, the RTC issued an Order recalling the judgment of acquittal for the purpose of rectifying its error, and thereafter, rendered a Decision convicting the accused-appellant for two counts of rape. This, however, cannot be countenanced for a contrary ruling would transgress the accused-appellant's constitutionally-enshrined right against double jeopardy.
Principles:
For double jeopardy to attach, the following elements must concur: (1) a valid information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction of the crime charged; (2) a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and had pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed without his express consent.
The rule on double jeopardy, however, is not without exceptions, which are: (1) Where there has been deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a mistrial, or (2) Where there has been a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances.
###
No comments:
Post a Comment