Consti II case digest: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES = plaintiff-appellant, AURELIO BALISACAN = defendant-appellee

People vs Balisacan (Double-Jeopardy - Requisite)

Keywords: ·         Homicide / Guilty plea but acquitted ·         Section 3 of Rule 119 of the ROC ·         No double-jeopardy because, in effect, there was no plea. ·         Case remanded to another judge for further proceedings

This is an appeal by the prosecution from a decision of acquittal.

FACTS: Defendant-appellee Aurelio Balisacan was charged with homicide in the CFI of Ilocos Norte. The information alleged that on December 3, 1964, in Nueva Era, Ilocos Norte, the accused assaulted and stabbed to death Leonicio Bulaoat.

The accused, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of guilty. At his counsel's petition, however, he was allowed to present evidence to prove mitigating circumstances. The accused testified that he stabbed Bulaoat in self-defense because the latter was strangling him. He further stated that he surrendered himself voluntarily to the police after the incident.

The court a quo rendered a decision acquitting the accused on the basis of his testimony. Hence, the instant appeal.

ISSUE: WON the instant appeal placed the accused in double jeopardy

RULING: It is settled that the existence of a plea is an essential requisite to double jeopardy. In the present case, it is true, the accused had first entered a plea of guilty. Subsequently, however, he testified, in the course of being allowed to prove mitigating circumstances, that he acted in complete self-defense. Said testimony, therefore — as the court a quo recognized in its decision — had the effect of vacating his plea of guilty and the court a quo should have required him to plead a new on the charge, or at least direct that a new plea of not guilty be entered for him. This was not done. It follows that in effect there having been no standing plea at the time the court a quo rendered its judgment of acquittal, there can be no double jeopardy with respect to the appeal herein.

Furthermore, as aforestated, the court a quo decided the case upon the merits without giving the prosecution any opportunity to present its evidence or even to rebut the testimony of the defendant. In doing so, it clearly acted without due process of law. And for lack of this fundamental prerequisite, its action is perforce null and void. The acquittal, therefore, being a nullity for want of due process, is no acquittal at all, and thus cannot constitute a proper basis for a claim of former jeopardy.

It should be noted that in rendering the judgment of acquittal, the trial judge below already gave credence to the testimony of the accused. In fairness to the prosecution, without in any way doubting the integrity of said trial judge, We deem it proper to remand this case to the court a quo for further proceedings under another judge of the same court, in one of the two other branches of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte sitting at Laoag.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby set aside and this case is remanded to the court for further proceedings under another judge of said court, that is, for plea by the defendant, trial with presentation of evidence for the prosecution and the defense, and judgment thereafter.