Camille May Savillo
LLB 1E
Constitutional Law II
CUISON vs. COURT OF APPEALS APPEALS
On February 7, 1989, responent !resiin" #u"e o$ t%e &e"ional 'rial Court o$ !an"asinan renere a #oint (e)ision in Criminal Cases *os+ L-..- an L-../, $inin" t%e a))use Euaro Cuison "uilty o$ t%e )rime o$ ouble %omi)ie+ On appeal to t%e Court o$ 0ppeal 0ppeals, s, t%e sai sai e)isi e)ision on was a$$i a$$irme rme wit% wit% t%e moi$i moi$i)at )ation ion t%at t%at t%e )ivil )ivil inemn inemnity ity be in)rease+ '%e a))use elevate t%e e)ision on a petition $or review but t%e Supreme Court eni enie e t%e t%e sai sai petit petitio ion+ n+ '%e '%e )ase )ase was was rema remane ne to t%e t%e &'C $or $or prom promul ul"at "atio ion n o$ t%e t%e e)ision+ e)ision+ owever, owever, responent #u"e promul"ate promul"ate t%e e)ision e)ision o$ t%e C0 only wit% respe)t to t%e moi$ie )ivil liability o$ t%e a))use but i not )ommit t%e a))use to 2ail to )ommen)e servi)e o$ %is senten)e+ FACTS: CTS:
0sst+ City !rose)utor 0bra%am L+ &amos II reporte t%e matter to t%e Soli)itor 3eneral an re4ueste t%at a motion $or )lari$i)ation be $ile wit% t%is Court to )lari$y t%e e)ision+ '%e C0 t%en renere a &esolution w%i)% states t%at t%ey simply moi$ie t%e appeale e)ision o$ t%e )ourt in one respe)t only t%e in)rease o$ t%e inemnity to be pai by t%e appellant to t%e %eirs o$ t%e vi)tims, an t%at t%ey %a a$$irme t%e e)ision o$ t%e )ourt wit% re"ar to t%e penalty o$ imprisonment impose in t%e sai trial )ourt5s e)ision+
&esponent #u"e t%en set t%e promul"ation promul"ation o$ t%e e)ision anew+ anew+ '%e a))use, %owever, $ile $ile a Motion to Set 0sie !romul"ation on t%e "rouns t%at t%e 2u"ment in sai )ase was alreay promul"ate an t%ere$ore t%ere is not%in" to promul"ate anymore, an t%at to pursue wit% t%e s)%eule promul"ation will violate %is )onstitutional ri"%t a"ainst 2eopary+ '%e responent #u"e "rante t%e a$orestat a$orestate e motion+ motion+ '%e Soli)itor Soli)itor 3eneral t%en $ile $ile be$ore be$ore t%e C0 a petition petition $or certiorari an mandamus )ontenin" mandamus )ontenin" t%at t%e responent #u"e seriously erre an "ravely abuse %is is)retion in re$usin" to e6e)ute t%e penalty o$ imprisonment in spite o$ t%e C05s (e)ision (e)ision an &esolution+ &esolution+ e prays t%at t%e Orer o$ t%e 2u"e be nulli$ie nulli$ie an t%e penalty o$ imprisonment renere a"ainst t%e a))use be en$or)e+ ISSUE:
%et%er petitioner5s ri"%t a"ainst ouble 2eopary was violate
!etitioner )ontens t%at t%e promul"ation by #u"e &amos o$ t%e &esponent Court5s e)ision by reain" its ispositive portion %as e$$e)tively terminate t%e )riminal )ases a"ainst %im+ In ot%er wors, petitioner )laims t%at t%e $irst 2eopary atta)%e at t%at point+
RULING:
'%e Court is not persuae+ persuae+ 0s a rule, a )riminal prose)utio prose)ution n in)lues a )ivil a)tion $or t%e re)overy o$ inemnity+ en)e, a e)ision in su)% )ase isposes o$ bot% t%e )riminal as well as t%e )ivil liabilities o$ an a))use+ ere, t%e trial )ourt promul"ate only t%e t%e )ivil aspe)t o$ t%e )ase, but not t%e )riminal+
0s earlier observe, t%e promul"ation o$ t%e C0 (e)ision was not )omplete+ In $a)t an in trut%, trut%, t%e promul"ation promul"ation was not merely in)omplete in)omplete it was also voi+ In e6)ess o$ its 2urisi)ti 2urisi)tion, on, t%e trial 2u"e renere a substantially substantially in)omplete promul"ation+ '%e Court emp%asies t%at "rave abuse o$ is)retion renere t%e a$orementione a)t o$ t%e trial )ourt voi+ Sin)e t%e )riminal
Camille May Savillo
LLB 1E
Constitutional Law II
)ases %ave not yet been terminate, t%e $irst 2eopary %as not yet atta)%e+ en)e, ouble 2eopary )annot prosper as a e$ense+ '%e )onstitutional pros)ription o$ ouble 2eopary is not violate by a Court o$ 0ppeals orer re4uirin" t%e trial )ourt to promul"ate a e)ision senten)in" t%e a))use to imprisonment even i$, earlier, t%e same e)ision %as been promul"ate in re"ar only to t%e payment o$ t%e moi$ie )ivil inemnity arisin" $rom t%e same )riminal a)t+ Ot%erwise state, t%e promul"ation o$ only one part o$ t%e e)ision, i.e., t%e liability $or )ivil inemnity, is not a bar to t%e subse4uent promul"ation o$ t%e ot%er part, t%e imposition o$ t%e )riminal a))ountability+
ALMARIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
!etitioner is one o$ t%e a))use in two )riminal )ases $or esta$a, wit% responent &ial Commer)ial Ban:in" Corporation ;&CBC< as t%e o$$ene party in bot% )ases+ '%e )ases were s)%eule $or )ontinuous trial, but t%e %earin"s were )an)elle be)ause t%e !resiin" #u"e o$ t%e )ourt was elevate to t%e Court o$ 0ppeals an no trial 2u"e was immeiately appointe=etaile t%ereto+ '%e %earin"s were :ept on bein" postpone+ en)e, upon motion o$ petitioner5s )ounsel, responent )ourt issue an orer ismissin" t%e )ase a"ainst a))use &oberto 0lmario $or $ailure to prose)ute an )onsierin" t%at a))use is entitle to a speey trial+ owever, upon motion o$ t%e private prose)utor, responent )ourt re)onsiere t%e previous Orer an state t%at t%e ismissal in t%at Orer i not result in t%e a)4uittal o$ t%e a))use sin)e t%e ri"%t o$ t%e a))use to speey trial %as not been violate, an its ismissal %avin" been mae upon t%e motion o$ t%e a))use t%ere is no ouble 2eopary+ !etitioner sou"%t a re)onsieration but it was enie+ !etitioner $ile be$ore t%e C0 a petition $or )ertiorari, pro%ibition an manamus wit% preliminary in2un)tion a"ainst t%e presiin" 2u"e, &CBC an t%e !eople o$ t%e !%ilippines+ '%e C0 enie t%e petition+ FACTS:
'%e petitioner maintains t%at t%e appellate )ourt erre in sustainin" t%e trial )ourt w%i)%, in turn, %a "ravely abuse its is)retion, amountin" to la): o$ 2urisi)tion, w%en it re)onsiere t%e orer w%i)% ismisse t%e )riminal )ases a"ainst %im+ !etitioner asserts t%at t%is reversal was a violation o$ t%e o)trine o$ ouble 2eopary, as t%e )riminal )ases were initially ismisse $or an alle"e violation o$ petitioner>s )onstitutional ri"%t to a speey trial+ %et%er, in petitioner>s )ases, ouble 2eopary %a set in so t%at petitioner>s )onstitutional ri"%t a"ainst su)% 2eopary %a been violate ISSUE:
In t%e )ases at bar, t%e orer o$ ismissal base on a violation o$ t%e ri"%t to speey trial was mae upon motion by )ounsel $or petitioner be$ore t%e trial )ourt+ It was mae at t%e instan)e o$ t%e a))use be$ore t%e trial )ourt, an wit% %is e6press )onsent+ 3enerally, t%e ismissal o$ a )riminal )ase resultin" in a)4uittal mae wit% t%e e6press )onsent o$ t%e a))use or upon %is own motion will not pla)e t%e a))use in ouble 2eopary+ owever, t%is rule amits o$ two e6)eptions, namely? insu$$i)ien)y o$ evien)e an enial o$ t%e ri"%t to speey trial+ RULING:
owever, in t%is )ase, elay in t%e trial was ue to )ir)umstan)es beyon t%e )ontrol o$ t%e parties an o$ t%e trial )ourt+ '%e postponements were 2usti$ie on t%e "roun o$ la): o$ noti)e to a))use, )oa))use, an=or )ounsel+ 0not%er was mae wit%out ob2e)tion $rom petitioner>s )ounsel+ '%us, a$ter a )loser analysis o$ t%ese su))essive events, t%e trial )ourt realie t%at t%e
Camille May Savillo
LLB 1E
Constitutional Law II
ates o$ t%e %earin"s were trans$erre $or vali "rouns+ en)e, t%e trial )ourt set asie its initial orer an reinstate t%e )ases a"ainst petitioner, w%i)% orer t%e appellate )ourt later sustaine+ '%ere was no unreasonable, ve6atious an oppressive elay in t%e trial+ en)e, t%ere was no violation o$ petitioner>s ri"%t to speey trial as t%ere were no un2usti$ie postponements w%i)% %a prolon"e t%e trial $or unreasonable len"t%s o$ time+ '%ere bein" no oppressive elay in t%e pro)eein"s, an no postponements un2usti$iably sou"%t, t%e Court )on)urs wit% t%e )on)lusion rea)%e by t%e C0 t%at petitioner>s ri"%t to speey trial %a not been in$rin"e+ It $ollows t%at petitioner )annot invo:e t%e )onstitutional ri"%t a"ainst ouble 2eopary w%en t%at orer was re)onsiere seasonably+ '%e trial )ourt>s initial orer o$ ismissal was upon motion o$ petitioner>s )ounsel, %en)e mae wit% t%e e6press )onsent o$ petitioner+ '%at bein" t%e )ase, espite t%e re)onsieration o$ sai orer, ouble 2eopary i not atta)%
MANANTAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS
On #une 1, 198-, t%e !rovin)ial Fis)al o$ Isabela $ile an in$ormation )%ar"in" petitioner 3eor"e Manantan wit% re):less impruen)e resultin" in %omi)ie+ On arrai"nment, petitioner pleae not "uilty to t%e )%ar"e+ 'rial on t%e merits ensue+ In its e)ision ate #une -@, 1988, promul"ate on 0u"ust /, 1988, t%e trial )ourt e)ie in petitioner5s $avor, $inin" %im not "uilty an a)4uitte %im wit%out a rulin" on %is )ivil liability+ FACTS:
On 0u"ust 8, 1988, private responents $ile t%eir noti)e o$ appeal on t%e )ivil aspe)t o$ t%e trial )ourt5s 2u"ment+ In t%eir appeal, t%e responents praye t%at t%e e)ision appeale $rom be moi$ie an t%at appellee be orere to pay inemnity an ama"es+ '%e appellate )ourt e)ie t%e appeal in $avor o$ t%e responents an %el Manantan )ivilly liable an senten)e %im to inemni$y t%e plainti$$sappellants in t%e amount o$ !17/,/@@+@@+ !etitioner move $or re)onsieration, but t%e appellate )ourt enie t%e motion+ en)e, t%is appeal+ !etitioner opines t%at t%e Court o$ 0ppeals s%oul not %ave isturbe t%e $inin"s o$ t%e trial )ourt on t%e la): o$ ne"li"en)e or re):less impruen)e uner t%e "uise o$ eterminin" %is )ivil liability+ e ar"ues t%at t%e trial )ourt5s $inin" t%at %e was neit%er impruent nor ne"li"ent was t%e basis $or %is a)4uittal, an not reasonable oubt+ e submits t%at in $inin" %im liable $or inemnity an ama"es, t%e appellate )ourt not only pla)e %is a)4uittal in suspi)ion, but also put %im in Aouble 2eopary+ ISSUE:
%et%er or not %is ri"%t a"ainst ouble 2eopar y was violate
!rivate responents )onten t%at w%ile t%e trial )ourt $oun t%at petitioner5s "uilt %a not been proven beyon reasonable oubt, it i not state in )lear an une4uivo)al terms t%at petitioner was not re):lessly impruent or ne"li"ent+ en)e, impliely t%e trial )ourt a)4uitte %im on reasonable oubt+ Sin)e )ivil liability is not e6tin"uis%e in )riminal )ases i$ t%e a)4uittal is base on reasonable oubt, t%e C0 %a to review t%e $inin"s o$ t%e trial )ourt to etermine i$ t%ere was a basis $or awarin" inemnity an ama"es+ HELD:
In t%e instant )ase, petitioner %a on)e been pla)e in 2eopary by t%e $ilin" o$ t%e )riminal )ase an t%e 2eopary was terminate by %is is)%ar"e+ '%e 2u"ment o$ a)4uittal be)ame immeiately $inal+ *ote, %owever, t%at w%at was elevate to t%e C0 was t%e )ivilaspe)t o$ t%e
Camille May Savillo
LLB 1E
Constitutional Law II
)riminal )ase+ !etitioner was not )%ar"e anew wit% a se)on )riminal o$$ense ienti)al to t%e $irst o$$ense+ '%e re)ors )learly s%ow t%at no se)on )riminal o$$ense was bein" impute to petitioner on appeal+ In moi$yin" t%e lower )ourt5s 2u"ment, t%e appellate )ourt i not moi$y t%e 2u"ment o$ a)4uittal+ *or i it orer t%e $ilin" o$ a se)on )riminal )ase a"ainst petitioner $or t%e same o$$ense+ Obviously, t%ere$ore, t%ere was no se)on 2eopary to spea: o$+ !etitioner5s )laim o$ %avin" been pla)e in ouble 2eopary is in)orre)t+ Our law re)o"nies two :ins o$ a)4uittal, wit% i$$erent e$$e)ts on t%e )ivil liability o$ t%e a))use+ First is an a)4uittal on t%e "roun t%at t%e a))use is not t%e aut%or o$ t%e a)t or omission )omplaine o$+ '%is instan)e )loses t%e oor to )ivil liability, $or a person w%o %as been $oun to be not t%e perpetrator o$ any a)t or omission )annot an )an never be %el liable $or su)% a)t or omission+ '%ere bein" no delict , )ivil liability ex delicto is out o$ t%e 4uestion, an t%e )ivil a)tion, i$ any, w%i)% may be institute must be base on "rouns ot%er t%an t%e delict )omplaine o$+ '%is is t%e situation )ontemplate in &ule 111 o$ t%e &ules o$ Court+ '%e se)on instan)e is an a)4uittal base on reasonable oubt on t%e "uilt o$ t%e a))use+ In t%is )ase, even i$ t%e "uilt o$ t%e a))use %as not been satis$a)torily establis%e, %e is not e6empt $rom )ivil liability+ '%is is t%e situation )ontemplate in 0rti)le 9 o$ t%e Civil Coe, w%ere t%e )ivil a)tion $or ama"es is A$or t%e same a)t or omission+ 0lt%ou"% t%e two a)tions %ave i$$erent purposes, t%e matters is)usse in t%e )ivil )ase are similar to t%ose is)usse in t%e )riminal )ase+ owever, t%e 2u"ment in t%e )riminal pro)eein" )annot be rea in evien)e in t%e )ivil a)tion to establis% any $a)t t%ere etermine, even t%ou"% bot% a)tions involve t%e same a)t or omission+ '%e reason $or t%is rule is t%at t%e parties are not t%e same an se)onarily, i$$erent rules o$ evien)e are appli)able+ en)e, notwit%stanin" %erein petitioner5s a)4uittal, t%e Court o$ 0ppeals in eterminin" w%et%er 0rti)le 9 applie, was not pre)lue $rom loo:in" into t%e 4uestion o$ petitioner5s ne"li"en)e or re):less impruen)e+
PEOPLE vs. FELICIANO
'%e a))useappellant, Carlos Feli)iano, was a se)urity "uar at t%e Din"smen builin", t%e %ub o$ $our is)o pubs in Dalibo, 0:lan+ &oel e la Cru wa s also a se)urity "uar statione at t%e par:in" lot o$ t%e same builin"+ In t%e early mornin" o$ #une ., 199., Feli)iano an e la Cru )entrally $i"ure in t%e investi"ation over t%e "risly eat% o$ an unienti$ie woman w%ose boy was $oun sprawle in Baran"ay *ew Buswan", Dalibo, 0:lan+ 0n In$ormation was $ile a"ainst e la Cru an Feli)iano+ '%e prose)ution sou"%t t%e is)%ar"e o$ a))use e la Cru so t%at t%e latter )oul testi$y a"ainst %is )oa))use+ !enin" resolution by t%e trial )ourt on t%e motion, Feli)iano an e la Cru were arrai"ne an bot% entere a plea o$ not "uilty+ '%en, t%e )ourt "rante t%e motion o$ t%e prose)ution an t%e name o$ e la Cru, an a))use turne state witness, was $ort%wit% stri):en o$$ $rom t%e In$ormation+ %en t%e trial )on)lue, t%e &'C pronoun)e a))use Feli)iano "uilty beyon reasonable oubt o$ t%e )rime o$ &obbery wit% omi)ie an senten)e %im to su$$er t%e e6treme penalty o$ eat%+ FACTS:
%et%er t%e trial )ourt erre in is)%ar"in" t%e a))use &oel e la Cru to be t%e state witness a"ainst )oa))use Carlos Feli)iano ISSUE:
'%e Court a"rees wit% appellant t%at state witness &oel e la Cru appears to be $ar $rom bein" t%e in)ulpable youn" man w%o %as simply been an unwittin" an relu)tant a))ompli)e to a "ruesome )rime+ Several in)ients militate a"ainst %is inno)en)e+ '%e evient attempt, nevert%eless, o$ t%e a))use turne state witness to miti"ate %is own )ulpability i not aversely a$$e)t %is is)%ar"e nor i it rener )ompletely wei"%tless t%e evientiary value o$ %is testimony+ RULING:
Camille May Savillo
LLB 1E
Constitutional Law II
'%e rules o$ pro)eure allowin" t%e is)%ar"e o$ an a))use to instea be a witness $or t%e state %as its ori"ins in t%e )ommon law o$ an)ient En"lan w%ere $ait%$ul per$orman)e o$ su)% an a"reement wit% t%e Crown )oul entitle a )riminal o$$ener to an e4uitable ri"%t to a re)ommenation $or e6e)utive )lemen)y+ In t%e !%ilippines, t%is "rant is not one o$ arbitrary is)retion but rat%er a soun 2ui)ial prero"ative to be e6er)ise wit% ue re"ar to t%e proper an )orre)t ispensation o$ )riminal 2usti)e+ In t%is )ase, even w%ile one mi"%t be )onvin)e t%at state witness &oel e la Cru woul, on t%e basis o$ evien)e ultimately submitte, appear to be e4ually as, an not less t%an, "uilty in )onspira)y wit% appellant Carlos Feli)iano, t%e %ans o$ t%e State are now staye an t%e Court must assure t%e e6emption o$ t%e witness $rom punis%ment+ It is wiely a))epte t%at t%e is)%ar"e o$ an a))use to be)ome a state witness %as t%e same e$$e)t as an a)4uittal+ '%e impropriety o$ t%e is)%ar"e woul not %ave any e$$e)t on t%e )ompeten)y an 4uality o$ t%e testimony, nor woul it %ave t%e )onse4uen)e o$ wit%rawin" %is immunity $rom prose)ution+ 0 is)%ar"e, i$ "rante at t%e sta"e w%ere 2eopary %as alreay atta)%e, is e4uivalent to an a)4uittal, su)% t%at $urt%er prose)ution woul be tantamount to t%e state rene"in" on its part o$ t%e a"reement an un)onstitutionally pla)in" t%e state witness in ouble 2eopary+ '%e rule, o$ )ourse, is not always irreversible+ In an instan)e w%ere t%e is)%ar"e a))use $ails to $ul$ill %is part o$ t%e bar"ain an re$uses to testi$y a"ainst %is )o a))use, t%e bene$it o$ %is is)%ar"e )an be wit%rawn an %e )an a"ain be prose)ute $or t%e same o$$ense+ (espite an obvious attempt to own"rae %is own parti)ipation in t%e )rime, state witness e la Cru, nevert%eless, i not rene"e $rom %is a"reement to "ive a "oo a))ount o$ t%e )rime, enou"% to inee substantiate t%e )onvi)tion o$ %is )oa))use, now appellant Carlos Feli)iano, by t%e trial )ourt+ 0ppellant Carlos Feli)iano was not able to su$$i)iently ispute %is parti)ipation t%erein+ *eit%er %is blan:et enial nor %is alibi, bot% in%erently wea: e$enses, was amply prove+ '%e Supreme Court a$$irme t%e e)ision o$ t%e trial )ourt e6)ept inso$ar as it impose on Carlos Feli)iano t%e penalty o$ eat% w%i)% was reu)e to re)lusion perpetua+
MERCIALES vs. COURT OF APPEALS
Criminal )ases $or rape wit% %omi)ie, in )onne)tion wit% t%e eat% o$ one Maritess &i)a$ort Mer)iales, were $ile a"ainst t%e private responents, #oselito *uaa, !at+ Ewin Moral, 0onis *ieves, Ernesto Lobete, (omil 3ra"ea an &amon !ol Flores, be$ore t%e &e"ional 'rial Court, Fi$t% #ui)ial &e"ion, Le"aspi City+ '%e sai )ases were )onsoliate in Bran)% 8, presie over by t%e responent 2u"e+ (urin" t%e trial, a$ter presentin" seven witnesses, t%e publi) prose)utor $ile a motion $or t%e is)%ar"e o$ a))use #oselito *uaa, in orer t%at %e may be utilie as a state witness+ owever, t%e prose)ution )ontene t%at it was not re4uire to present evien)e to warrant t%e is)%ar"e o$ a))use *uaa, sin)e t%e latter %a alreay been amitte into t%e itness !rote)tion !ro"ram o$ t%e (epartment o$ #usti)e+ Conse4uently, t%e responent 2u"e enie t%e motion $or is)%ar"e, $or $ailure o$ t%e prose)ution to present evien)e as provie $or by Se)tion 9, &ule 119 o$ t%e 198. &ules on Criminal !ro)eure+ FACTS:
'%e prose)ution $ile a petition $or )ertiorari be$ore t%e Supreme Court, 4uestionin" t%e responent 2u"e>s enial o$ t%e motion to is)%ar"e t%e a))use *uaa+ owever t%e private responents ob2e)te to any $urt%er resettin" as t%is woul )onstitute a violation o$ t%eir ri"%t to a speey trial+ '%e e$ense t%en move t%at t%e )ases be eeme submitte $or e)ision, an as:e leave o$ )ourt to $ile a emurrer to evien)e+ On O)tober 1, 199/, t%e trial )ourt issue t%e assaile Orer, a)4uittin" all o$ t%e a))use $or la): o$ su$$i)ient evien)e to prove t%eir "uilt beyon reasonable oubt+ '%e mot%er o$ t%e vi)tim $ile be$ore t%e responent Court o$ 0ppeals
Camille May Savillo
LLB 1E
Constitutional Law II
a petition to annul t%e $ore"oin" Orer o$ t%e trial )ourt+ '%e C0 ismisse t%e petition+ en)e, t%e instant petition+ ISSUE:
%et%er reopenin" t%e )riminal )ase will violate t%e a))use5s ri"%t to ouble 2eopary
RULING: '%e
)riminal )ase was $or rape wit% %omi)ie+ 0lt%ou"% t%e publi) prose)utor presente seven witnesses, none o$ t%ese a)tually saw t%e )ommission o$ t%e )rime+ It was only #oselito *uaa, one o$ t%e a))use, w%o )ame $orwar an e6presse willin"ness to turn state witness+ is testimony was vital $or t%e prose)ution, as it woul provie t%e only eyewitness a))ount o$ t%e a))use5s )ompli)ity in t%e )rime+ '%e trial )ourt re4uire t%e publi) prose)utor to present evien)e to 2usti$y *uaa5s is)%ar"e as a state witness, but t%e latter insiste t%at t%ere was no nee $or su)% proo$ sin)e *uaa %a alreay been amitte into t%e itness !rote)tion !ro"ram+ '%e re$usal to present t%e re4uire evien)e prompte t%e trial )ourt to eny t%e motion to is)%ar"e *uaa+ In t%e )ase at bar, t%e publi) prose)utor :new t%at %e %a not presente su$$i)ient evien)e to )onvi)t t%e a))use+ e eliberately $aile to present an available witness an t%ereby allowe t%e )ourt to e)lare t%at t%e prose)ution %as reste its )ase+ '%e publi) prose)utor in t%is )ase was "uilty o$ blatant error an abuse o$ is)retion, t%ereby )ausin" pre2ui)e to t%e o$$ene party+ By re$usin" to )omply wit% t%e trial )ourt5s orer to present evien)e, t%e publi) prose)utor "rossly violate t%e rules+ Li:ewise "uilty $or serious non$easan)e was t%e trial )ourt+ *otwit%stanin" its :nowle"e t%at t%e evien)e $or t%e prose)ution was insu$$i)ient to )onvi)t, espe)ially a$ter t%e publi) prose)utor tena)iously insiste on utiliin" *uaa as state witness, t%e trial )ourt passively wat)%e as t%e publi) prose)utor bu n"le t%e )ase+ Inasmu)% as t%e a)4uittal o$ t%e a))use by t%e )ourt was one wit%out re"ar to ue pro)ess o$ law, t%e same is null an voi+ It is as i$ t%ere was no a)4uittal at all, an t%e same )annot )onstitute a )laim $or ouble 2eopary+ By )ontenin" t%at t%e )%allen"e (e)ision is voi $or %avin" been issue wit% "rave abuse o$ is)retion amountin" to la): or e6)ess o$ 2urisi)tion, t%e petition oes not violate t%e ri"%t o$ t%e a))use a"ainst ouble 2eopary+ '%us, even assumin" t%at a writ o$ )ertiorari is "rante, t%e a))use woul not be pla)e in ouble 2eopary be)ause, $rom t%e very be"innin", t%e lower tribunal %a a)te wit%out 2urisi)tion+ !re)isely, any rulin" issue wit%out 2urisi)tion is, in le"al )ontemplation, ne)essarily null an voi an oes not e6ist+ POTOT vs. PEOPLE
#oey S+ !otot, petitioner, was )%ar"e wit% %omi)ie+ pon arrai"nment, %e pleae "uilty to t%e )%ar"e+ '%ereupon, t%e trial )ourt renere an promul"ate its 2u"ment, )onvi)tin" %im o$ %omi)ie+ !etitioner t%en $ile a mani$estation wit% motion in$ormin" t%e trial )ourt t%at %e is not appealin" $rom t%e (e)ision an prayin" t%at a )ommitment orer be issue so %e )oul immeiately serve %is senten)e+ owever, t%e wi$e o$ t%e vi)tim $ile a motion $or re)onsieration=retrial prayin" t%at t%e (e)ision be set asie an t%at t%e )ase be %ear a"ain be)ause t%ere were irre"ularities )ommitte be$ore an urin" t%e trial w%i)% )ause mis)arria"e o$ 2usti)e+ '%e trial )ourt "rante t%e motion+ It li:ewise orere t%at t%e re)ors o$ t%e )ase be remane to t%e O$$i)e o$ t%e !rovin)ial !rose)utor $or reevaluation o$ t%e evien)e an to $ile t%e )orresponin" )%ar"e+ !etitioner $ile a motion $or re)onsieration )ontenin" t%at t%e trial )ourt %as no 2urisi)tion to issue t%e orer as t%e (e)ision %a be)ome $inal, an t%at t%e sai orer woul pla)e t%e a))use in ouble 2eopary+ '%e trial )ourt enie t%e motion $or re)onsieration $or t%e reason t%at t%e State is not boun by t%e error or ne"li"en)e o$ its prose)utin" o$$i)ers, %en)e, 2eopary oes not atta)%+ FACTS:
%et%er or not t%e 2u"ment %as be)ome $inal t%at t%e a))use5s ri"%t a"ainst ouble 2eopary will be violate upon retrial o$ t%e same )ase ISSUE:
Camille May Savillo RULING:
LLB 1E
Constitutional Law II
'%e Court $ins t%e petition meritorious+
Se)tion 7, &ule 1@ o$ t%e &evise &ules on Criminal !ro)eure states t%at only t%e a))use may as: $or a moi$i)ation or settin" asie o$ a 2u"ment o$ )onvi)tion+ 0n t%is %e must o be$ore t%e sai 2u"ment be)omes $inal or be$ore %e per$e)ts %is appeal+ Su)% 2u"ment be)omes $inal in any o$ t%e $ollowin" ways? ;a< w%en no appeal is seasonably $ile by t%e a))use, e6)ept in )ase o$ automati) review o$ t%e e)ision imposin" t%e )apital penalty ;b< w%en %e %as partially or totally serve %is senten)e ;)< w%en %e e6pressly waives %is ri"%t to appeal t%e 2u"ment, e6)ept w%en t%e eat% penalty is impose or ;< w%en %e applies $or probation+ %en one o$ t%ese )ir)umstan)es is present, t%e trial )ourt w%i)% renere t%e 2u"ment o$ )onvi)tion loses 2urisi)tion to alter, moi$y or revo:e it+ It is an unispute $a)t t%at t%ree ays a$ter t%e promul"ation o$ t%e 2u"ment o$ )onvi)tion, petitioner $ile a mani$estation e6pressly waivin" % is ri"%t to appeal t%ere$rom+ Su)% waiver %as t%e e$$e)t o$ )ausin" t%e 2u"ment to be)ome $inal an unalterable+ '%us, it was beyon t%e aut%ority o$ t%e trial )ourt to issue t%e orer settin" asie its (e)ision w%i)% %a attaine $inality+ It is li:ewise pro)eurally impermissible $or t%e trial )ourt to "rant private )omplainant>s motion $or re)onsieration o$ its (e)ision+ Se)tion 1, &ule 11 o$ t%e same &ules provies t%at at any time be$ore a 2u"ment o$ )onvi)tion be)omes $inal, t%e )ourt may, on motion o$ t%e a))use or at its own instan)e but wit% t%e )onsent o$ t%e a))use, "rant a new trial or re)onsieration+ Sin)e t%e motion $or re)onsieration o$ t%e 2u"ment o$ )onvi)tion was not initiate by t%e a))use or at t%e instan)e o$ t%e trial )ourt wit% %is )onsent, t%e same s%oul %ave been enie outri"%t as bein" violative o$ t%e above provision+ 0t any rate, t%e re)ors o not s%ow any irre"ularity in t%e preliminary investi"ation o$ t%e )ase be$ore t%e !rovin)ial !rose)utor5s O$$i)e+ '%e Court a"rees wit% t%e petitioner t%at t%e assaile orers woul violate %is )onstitutional ri"%t a"ainst ouble 2eopary+ Su)% ri"%t pro%ibits any subse4uent prose)ution o$ any person $or a )rime o$ w%i)% %e %as previously been a)4uitte or )onvi)te+ '%e ob2e)tive is to set t%e e$$e)ts o$ t%e $irst prose)ution $orever at rest, assurin" t%e a))use t%at %e s%all not t%erea$ter be sub2e)te to t%e peril an an6iety o$ a se)on )%ar"e a"ainst %im $or t%e same o$$ense+ '%e re4uisites $or invo:in" t%e e$ense o$ ouble 2eopary %ave been establis%e+ &e)ors s%ow t%at petitioner was )%ar"e wit% %omi)ie uner a vali in$ormation be$ore t%e trial )ourt w%i)% %as 2urisi)tion over it+ e was arrai"ne an pleae "uilty to t%e )%ar"e+ On t%e basis o$ %is plea, petitioner was )onvi)te an mete t%e )orresponin" penalty+ 0s petitioner %as been pla)e in 2eopary $or t%e )rime o$ %omi)ie, %e )annot be prose)ute anew $or t%e same o$$ense, or any o$$ense w%i)% ne)essarily in)lues or is ne)essarily in)lue in t%e $irst o$$ense )%ar"e+
PEOPLE vs. ASTUDILLO
'%is is an appeal $rom t%e e)ision o$ t%e &e"ional 'rial Court o$ Ban"ue, 0bra, Bran)% , )onvi)tin" appellants Claren)e 0stuillo, Crisanto 0stuillo an ilario 0stuillo o$ t%e )rime o$ Murer senten)in" t%em to su$$er t%e penalty reclusion perpetua an orerin" t%em, 2ointly an severally, to pay ama"es to t%e %eirs o$ t%e e)ease+ pon arrai"nment, appellants pleae not "uilty+ 'rial on t%e merits t%erea$ter ensue+ FACTS:
On Mar)% 1G, 1998, t%e trial )ourt renere a e)ision )onvi)tin" appellants o$ t%e )rime o$ Murer 4uali$ie by abuse o$ superior stren"t%+ 0ppellants $ile a motion $or re)onsieration )ontenin" t%at t%e prose)ution $aile to prove t%eir "uilt beyon reasonable oubt an, assumin" t%at it i, t%e 4uali$yin" )ir)umstan)e o$ abuse o$ superior stren"t%, not %avin" been
Camille May Savillo
LLB 1E
Constitutional Law II
alle"e in t%e in$ormation, )annot be appre)iate a"ainst t%em+ 0ppellants5 motion $or re)onsieration was enie in an Orer ate #uly 1-, 1998+ owever, an 0mene (e)ision was renere w%ere t%e p%rase Aabuse o$ superior stren"t% was repla)e wit% A'&E0CE&H in t%e boy o$ t%e (e)ision+ %et%er or not t%ere was a violation o$ t%e ri"%t a"ainst ouble 2eopary w%en t%e trial )ourt renere t%e se)on e)ision ISSUE:
ner &ule 11, Se)tion 1 o$ t%e &evise &ules on Criminal !ro)eure, a motion $or re)onsieration o$ a 2u"ment o$ )onvi)tion may be $ile by t%e a))use, or initiate by t%e )ourt, wit% t%e )onsent o$ t%e a))use+ Li:ewise, uner &ule 1@, Se)tion 7, a 2u"ment o$ )onvi)tion may be moi$ie or set asie only upon motion o$ t%e a))use+ '%ese provisions )%an"e t%e previous rulin"s o$ t%e Court to t%e e$$e)t t%at su)% moi$i)ation may be mae upon motion o$ t%e $is)al, provie t%e same is mae be$ore a 2u"ment %as be)ome $inal or an appeal %as been per$e)te+ '%e re4uisite )onsent o$ t%e a))use to su)% motion $or re)onsieration or moi$i)ation is intene to prote)t t%e latter $rom %avin" to e$en %imsel$ anew $rom more serious o$$enses or penalties w%i)% t%e prose)ution or t%e )ourt may %ave overloo:e+ 0))orin"ly, on)e t%e 2u"ment %as been valily promul"ate, any re)onsieration or amenment to )orre)t a mani$est substantial error, even i$ unwittin"ly )ommitte by t%e trial )ourt t%rou"% oversi"%t or an initially erroneous )ompre%ension, )an be mae only wit% t%e )onsent or upon t%e instan)e o$ t%e a))use+ Errors in t%e e)ision )annot be )orre)te unless t%e a))use )onsents t%ereto, or %imsel$ moves $or re)onsieration o$, or appeals $rom, t%e e)ision+ RULING:
owever, t%e prote)tion a"ainst ouble 2eopary in t%e $ore"oin" rules may be waive by t%e a))use+ '%us, w%en t%e a))use %imsel$ $iles or )onsents to t%e $ilin" o$ a motion $or re)onsieration or moi$i)ation, ouble 2eopary )annot be invo:e be)ause t%e a))use waive %is ri"%t not to be pla)e t%erein by $ilin" su)% motion+ is motion "ives t%e )ou rt an opportunity to re)ti$y its errors or to reevaluate its assessment o$ $a)ts an )on)lusions o$ law an ma:e t%em )on$ormable wit% t%e statute appli)able to t%e )ase in t%e new 2u"ment it %as to rener+ In e$$e)t, a motion $or re)onsieration or moi$i)ation $ile by or wit% )onsent o$ t%e a))use reners t%e entire evien)e open $or t%e review o$ t%e trial )ourt wit%out, %owever, )onu)tin" $urt%er pro)eein"s, su)% as t%e ta:in" o$ aitional proo$+ Clearly, t%ere$ore, appellants )annot i)tate upon t%e trial )ourt w%i)% aspe)ts o$ t%e 2u"ment o$ )onvi)tion s%oul be reviewe+ avin" $ile a timely motion $or re)onsieration as:in" t%e )ourt to a)4uit, or in t%e alternative, )onvi)t t%em o$ t%e lesser o$$ense o$ %omi)ie, appellants waive t%e e$ense o$ ouble 2eopary an e$$e)tively pla)e t%e evien)e ta:en at t%e trial open $or t%e review o$ t%e trial )ourt+ 0t any rate, t%e issue o$ t%e attenant 4uali$yin" )ir)umstan)e in t%e )ase at bar was s4uarely raise by t%e appellants in t%eir alternative prayer $or )onvi)tion $or t%e lesser o$$ense o$ %omi)ie in view o$ t%e erroneous appre)iation o$ t%e 4uali$yin" )ir)umstan)e o$ abuse o$ superior stren"t% w%i)% was not alle"e in t%e in$ormation+ en)e, t%e )ourt a quo is not only empowere but also uner obli"ation to re)ti$y its mista:e in appre)iatin" t%e 4uali$yin" )ir)umstan)e o$ abuse o$ superior stren"t% instea o$ trea)%ery+ erily, it is pre)lue $rom )onsierin" t%e attenan)e o$ a 4uali$yin" )ir)umstan)e i$ t%e )omplaint or in$ormation i not alle"e su)% $a)ts+ Even be$ore t%e &evise &ules on Criminal !ro)eure too: e$$e)t on (e)ember 1, @@@, 4uali$yin" )ir)umstan)es were re4uire to be so spe)i$ie in t%e )omplaint or in$ormation, ot%erwise t%ey )annot be appre)iate a"ainst t%e a))use+
