Consti II case digest: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES = petitioner HON. PERLITA J. TRIA-TIRONA, Judge, Branch 102, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City and CHIEF INSPECTOR RENATO A. MUYOT = respondents

People vs TRIA-TIRONA (Double-Jeopardy – MRs and Appeals)

Keywords: ·         Violation Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (&RA 7659) ·         Decision was based on People vs Velasco ·         Only when there is a finding of a sham trial (mistrial) can the doctrine of double jeopardy be NOT invoked ·         Petition for Certiorari Dismissed

FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the annulment of the decision of respondent Judge Tria-Tirona acquitting accused-private respondent Chief Inspector Renato A. Muyot and in lieu thereof a judgment be issued convicting the latter of the crime charged.

Armed with two search warrants, members of the NBI and the Presidential Task Force Hammer Head serving as security, conducted a search on the house of accused MUYOT located in Banawe, Quezon City.  The alleged finding of 498.1094 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) which led to the filing of an information charging private respondent with Violation of Section 16, Article III of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by RA 7659.

The case was raffled to the sala of public respondent judge PERLITA J. TRIA-TIRONA

Private respondent, assisted by a counsel de parte, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. After trial on the merits, public respondent rendered a decision acquitting private respondent on ground of reasonable doubt. Hence, the instant petition.

Petitioner contends that public respondent, in acquitting private respondent, committed grave abuse of discretion by ignoring material facts and evidence on record which, when considered, would lead to accused’s conviction. 

ISSUE: Can the government appeal from a judgment acquitting the accused after trial on the merits without violating the constitutional precept against double jeopardy?

I

RULING: To settle the issue of whether or not an acquittal can still be appealed, this Court pronounced in People v. Velasco that as mandated by the Constitution, statutes and jurisprudence, an acquittal is final and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy, whether it happens at the trial court level or before the Court of Appeals.   In general, the rule is that a remand to a trial court of a judgment of acquittal brought before the Supreme Court on certiorari cannot be had unless there is a finding of mistrial, as in Galman v. Sandiganbayan. Only when there is a finding of a sham trial can the doctrine of double jeopardy be not invoked because the people, as represented by the prosecution, were denied due process.

From the foregoing pronouncements, it is clear in this jurisdiction that after trial on the merits, an acquittal is immediately final and cannot be appealed on the ground of double jeopardy.  The only exception where double jeopardy cannot be invoked is where there is a finding of mistrial resulting in a denial of due process.

We have categorically ruled in People v. Velasco that, except when there is a finding of mistrial, no appeal will lie in case of an acquittal.  There being no mistrial in the case before us, we find no need to reexamine the evidence, because if we do so, we will be allowing an appeal to be made on an acquittal which would clearly be in violation of the accused’s right against double jeopardy.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.