Consti II case digest: PEOPLE VS SANDIGANBAYAN and VILLAPANDO

Double Jeopardy: Requisites

FACTS:

Petitioner herein was elected as the Municipal Mayor of Palawan, while his relative Orlando Tiape lost the election as Municipal Mayor of Kitcharao. After then, the petitioner appointed Tiape as the Municipal Administrator of the Municipality of San Vicente, Palawan.

On February, 2000, Solomon Maagad and Renato Fernandez charged the petitioner herein for violation of Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code (Unlawful Appointment) before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon.

During the arraignment, Villapando pleaded not guilty. Meanwhile the case against Tiape was dismissed after the prosecution proved his death.

After the prosecution rested its case, Villapando moved for leave to file a demurrer to evidence.

The lower court rendered a judgment acquitting Villapando for the crime charged on grounds that the legal qualifications pertains to education attainment. By granting the demurrer of evidence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the granting of demurrer of evidence by the lower court amounts to an acquittal and any further prosecution of the accused would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.

HELD:

The Ruling that demurrer of evidence followed by the another prosecution equates to double jeopardy cannot be disturbed in the absence of grave abuse of discretion.

In the case at bar, the Sandiganbayan's interpretation of the Revised Penal Code defies legal cogency. Legal disqualification cannot be read as excluding temporary disqualification in order to exempt therefrom the legal prohibitions under the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991. We reiterate the doctrine, Ube lex non distinguit ned now distenguere debemos. When the law does not distinguish, the court should not distinguish.

Hence, the Sandiganbayan did not grant Villapando a leave for demurrer of evidence but give him a 5 day time frame to which to inform it in writing whether he will submit his demurrer to evidence for resolution without leave of court.

Notably, a judgment rendered with grave abuse of discretion or without due process is void, does not exist in legal contemplation. Thus, in the case at bar, it cannot be said that the demurrer of evidence and acquittal resulting therefrom, violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.