11) People - v. - Velasco

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 127444. September 13, 2000.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , petitioner, vs . HON. TIRSO D. C.

VELASCO in his capacity as the Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 88,
Quezon City, and HONORATO GALVEZ , respondents.
Solicitor General for petitioner.

Acosta Rueda-Acosta Law office and Associates for petitioners-intervenors.
Lazaro Law Firm for private respondent Mayor Honorato Galves.
SYNOPSIS
For insu ciency of evidence, private respondent Honorato Galvez was acquitted in
the cases for murder and frustrated of murder. Further, he was absolved from the charge
of illegal carrying of rearm. In this petition for certiorari, however, the State would want
his acquittal reversed. IaEHSD
As mandated by the Constitution, statutes and cognate jurisprudence, an acquittal is

nal and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy, whether it happens the at the trial
court level or before the Court of Appeals. Thus, the rule is that a judgment of acquittal
brought before the Supreme Court on certiorari cannot be had unless there is a nding of
mistrial as in the case of Galman v. Sandiganbayan . In the instant case, the petition for
certiorari seeks the nullity of the decision of the respondent judge acquitting the accused.
However, the questioned decision showed that respondent judge considered and passed
upon the evidence received at the trial. Thus, this exempts the act from the writ's limiting
requirement of excess or lack of jurisdiction. Errors of judgment are not to be confused
with errors in the exercise of jurisdiction.
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE

JEOPARDY; APPEAL FROM DISMISSALS OF CRIMINAL CASES ALLOWED IN AMERICAN
RULES OF PROCEDURE DOES NOT OBTAIN IN THE PHILIPPINES. — The contextual
situation in which appeals from dismissals of criminal cases are allowed under American
rules of procedure does not obtain in the Philippines. To be sure, United States v. Scott
positively spelled out that if an acquittal was based on an appreciation of the evidence
adduced, no appeal would lie. Mr. Justice Rehnquist explained that what may seem
super cially to be a "disparity in the rules governing a defendant's liability to be tried again"
refers to the underlying purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. He elaborated that "(a)s
Kepner and Fong Fee [cases] illustrate, the law attaches particular signi cance to an
acquittal. To permit a second trial after an acquittal however mistaken . . . would present
an unacceptably high risk that the Government, with its vastly superior resources, might
wear down the defendant so that even though innocent he may be found guilty. . . . On the
other hand, to require a criminal defendant to stand trial again after he has successfully
invoked the statutory right of appeal to upset his rst conviction is not an act of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
governmental oppression of the sort against which the . . . Clause was intended to
protect." aHSTID
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROPOSED RE-EVALUATION OF PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE ON

DOUBLE JEOPARDY THAT APPEALS OF ACQUITTAL ARE POSSIBLE PROVIDED ACCUSED
WILL NOT BE SUBJECTED TO SECOND TRIAL; NOT APPRECIATED IN CASE AT BAR. — In
proposing a re-evaluation of Philippine jurisprudence on double jeopardy, petitioner insists
t h a t Wilson and Scott [cases] have unquestionably altered the seascape of double
jeopardy previously navigated by Kepner and Ball [cases]. Using as its agship the
pronouncement in Wilson that appeals of acquittal are possible provided the accused will
not be subjected to a second trial, it argues that this should apply to the case at bar
because, anyway, a review of the acquittal of private respondent Honorato Galvez will not
result in another trial inasmuch as the Court will only have to examine the evidence
adduced below to pass nal judgment on the culpability of the accused. Petitioner's own
hermeneutic sense of the phrase "another trial" is that solely adverts to a proceeding
before a competent trial court that rehears the case and receives evidence anew to
establish the facts after the case has been nally disposed of by the Supreme Court.
Obviously, it adheres to the Holmesian hypothesis in Kepner and for that matter, the
concept under Spanish law then applicable in the Philippines before the American
colonization, that a trial consists of one whole continuing process from reception of
evidence by a trier of facts up to its nal disposition by the Supreme Court. But petitioner
conveniently forgets that this theory has been consistently spurned by both American and
Philippine jurisprudence that has faithfully adhered to the doctrine that an appeal of a
judgment after the defendant has been acquitted by the court in a bench trial is,
quintessentially, a new trial. In Kepner, the Court regarded the two (2) events, i.e., trial by
the lower court and the appellate proceedings, as equivalent to two (2) separate trials, and
the evil that the Court saw in the procedure was plainly that of multiple prosecutions.
Although Kepner technically involved only one proceeding, the Court deemed the second
fact- nding, that is, the review by the appellate court, as the equivalent of a second trial.
Accordingly, in subsequent cases, the Court has treated the Kepner principle as being
addressed to the evil of successive trials. No less than the case of Wilson, petitioner's
main anchor for its propositions, a rms this rule. There, the Court emphasized that it has,
up to the present, rejected the theory espoused by the dissenting Mr. Justice Holmes in
Kepner that "a man cannot be said to be more than once in jeopardy in the same cause
however often he may be tried. The jeopardy is one continuing jeopardy, from its beginning
to the end of the cause." It declared unequivocally that "we continue to be of the view that
the policies underlying the Double Jeopardy Clause militate against permitting the
Government to appeal after a verdict of acquittal." Wilson therefore pronounced that if
acquittal is declared on the basis of evidence adduced, double jeopardy attaches for that
particular cause. The Court is insu ciently persuaded to adopt petitioner's concept of
"another trial" because, it disregards the contextual interpretation of the term in light of the
legal and factual morphology of the double jeopardy principle obtaining in Wilson and
Scott. To sum up, in the cause before us, the records show that respondent trial judge
based his nding of acquittal, no matter how erroneous it might seem to petitioner, upon
the evidence presented by both parties. The judgment here was no less than a factual
resolution of the case. Thus, to the extent that the post-verdict acquittal in Wilson was
based on a ruling of law and not on a resolution of facts, Wilson is not pertinent to nor
persuasive in the case at bar. The same observation holds true for Scott. That it was the
defendant who secured the dismissal of the charges against him without any submission
to either judge or jury as to his guilt or innocence, but on a ground totally outside
evidentiary considerations, i.e., pre-indictment delay, de nitely forecloses the applicability,
if not relevance, of Scott to the instant case.
3. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND ITS
EFFECT ON ACQUITTALS; ELUCIDATED. — The Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure
relative to double jeopardy and the effect thereon of acquittals adhere strictly to
constitutional provisions. Under Sec. 1 of Rule 117 providing for former conviction or
acquittal and double jeopardy, there can be no mistaking the requisites for invoking double
jeopardy: (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) before a competent court before which
the same is led; (c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and, (d) the defendant was
acquitted, or convicted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated
without his express consent. It bears repeating that where acquittal is concerned, the rules
do not distinguish whether it occurs at the level of the trial court or on appeal from a
judgment of conviction. This rmly establishes the nality-of-acquittal rule in our
jurisdiction. Therefore, as mandated by our Constitution, statutes and cognate
jurisprudence, an acquittal is nal and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy,
whether it happens at the trial court level or before the Court of Appeals.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN REVIEW OF ACQUITTAL PROPER. — In general, the rule is
that a remand to a trial court of a judgment of acquittal brought before the Supreme Court
o n certiorari cannot be had unless there is a nding of mistrial, as in Galman v.
Sandiganbayan. The doctrine that "double jeopardy may not be invoked after trial" may
apply only when the Court nds that the "criminal trial was a sham" because the
prosecution representing the sovereign people in the criminal case was denied due
process. The Court in People v. Bocar rationalized that the "remand of the criminal case for
further hearing and/or trial before the lower courts amounts merely to a continuation of
the rst jeopardy, and does not expose the accused to a second jeopardy." The
fundamental philosophy highlighting the nality of an acquittal by the trial court cuts deep
into "the humanity of the laws and in a jealous watchfulness over the rights of the citizen,
when brought in unequal contest with the State . . . ." Thus Green expressed the concern
that "(t)he underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American
system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be
allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby
subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a
continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even
though innocent, he may be found guilty."
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; FINALITY OF ACQUITTAL, DISCUSSED. — It is axiomatic that on the
basis of humanity, fairness and justice, an acquitted defendant is entitled to the right of
repose as a direct consequence of the nality of his acquittal. The philosophy underlying
this rule establishing the absolute nature of acquittals is "part of the paramount
importance criminal justice system attaches to the protection of the innocent against
wrongful conviction." The interest in the nality-of-acquittal rule, con ned exclusively to
verdicts of not guilty, is easy to understand: it is a need for "repose," a desire to know the
exact extent of one's liability. With this right of repose, the criminal justice system has built
in a protection to insure that the innocent, even those whose innocence rests upon a jury's
leniency, will not be found guilty in a subsequent proceeding. Related to his right of repose
is the defendant's interest in his right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal.
This interest encompasses his right to have his guilt or innocence determined in a single
proceeding by the initial jury empanelled to try him, for society's awareness of the heavy
personal strain which the criminal trial represents for the individual defendant is
manifested in the willingness to limit Government to a single criminal proceeding to
vindicate its very vital interest in enforcement of criminal laws. The ultimate goal is
prevention of government oppression; the goal nds its voice in the nality of the initial
proceeding. As observed in Lockhart v. Nelson , "(t)he fundamental tenet animating the
Double Jeopardy Clause is that the State should not be able to oppress individuals through
the abuse of the criminal process." Because the innocence of the accused has been
con rmed by a nal judgment, the Constitution conclusively presumes that a second trial
would be unfair. Thus, "emerging American consensus on jury acquittals" notwithstanding,
on solid constitutional bedrock is well engraved our own doctrine that acquittals by judges
on evidentiary considerations cannot be appealed by government. The jurisprudential
metes and bounds of double jeopardy having been clearly de ned by both constitution and
statute, the issue of the effect of an appeal of a verdict of acquittal upon a determination
of the evidence on the constitutionally guaranteed right of an accused against being twice
placed in jeopardy should now be finally put to rest.DaAIHC
6. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; WRIT OF CERTIORARI; WHEN THE STATE IS

APPLYING FOR WRIT TO APPEAL ACQUITTAL. — The o ce of the common law writ of
certiorari is to bring before the court for inspection the record of the proceedings of an
inferior tribunal in order that the superior court may determine from the face of the record
whether the inferior court has exceeded its jurisdiction, or has not proceeded according to
the essential requirements of the law. However, the original function and purpose of the
writ have been so modi ed by statutes and judicial decisions. It is particularly so in the
eld of criminal law when the state is applying for the writ and problems arise concerning
the right of the state to appeal in a criminal case. As a general rule, the prosecution cannot
appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment in favor of the defendant in a criminal
case in the absence of a statute clearly conferring that right. The problem comes into
sharper focus when the defendant contends, in effect, that the prosecution is attempting
to accomplish by the writ what it could not do by appeal, and that his constitutional rights
are being thus encroached upon. Generally, under modern constitutions and statutes,
provisions are available as guides to the court in determining the standing of the
prosecution to secure by certiorari a review of a lower court decision in a criminal case
which has favored the defendant. In most instances, provisions setting forth the scope and
function of certiorari are found together with those relating to the right of the state to
appeal or bring error in criminal matters. There is some indication that courts view the writ
o f certiorari as an appeal in itself where the applicant shows that there is no other
adequate remedy available, and it is not uncommon to nd language in cases to the effect
that the state should not be permitted to accomplish by certiorari what it cannot do by
appeal. Thus, if a judgment sought to be reviewed was one entered after an acquittal by a
jury or the discharge of the accused on the merits by the trial court, the standing of the
prosecution to review it by certiorari is far more likely to be denied than if it were such an
order as one sustaining a demurrer to, or quashing the indictment, or granting a motion for
arrest of judgment after a verdict of guilty. Philippine jurisprudence has been consistent in
its application of the Double Jeopardy Clause such that it has viewed with suspicion, and
not without good reason, applications for the extraordinary writ questioning decisions
acquitting an accused on ground of grave abuse of discretion.
7. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT PROPER WHERE TRIAL COURT'S APPRECIATION AND
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE IS REAL ISSUE. — The petition at hand which seeks to nullify
the decision of respondent judge acquitting the accused Honorato Galvez goes deeply into
the trial court's appreciation and evaluation in esse of the evidence adduced by the parties.
A reading of the questioned decision shows that respondent judge considered the
evidence received at trial. These consisted among others of the testimonies relative to the
positions of the victims vis-à-vis the accused and the trajectory, location and nature of the
gunshot wounds, and the opinion of the expert witness for the prosecution. While the
appreciation thereof may have resulted in possible lapses in evidence evaluation, it
nevertheless does not detract from the fact that the evidence was considered and passed
upon. This consequently exempts the act from the writ's limiting requirement of excess or
lack of jurisdiction. As such, it becomes an improper object of and therefore non-
reviewable by certiorari. To reiterate, errors of judgment are not to be confused with errors
in the exercise of jurisdiction. SaHTCE
PANGANIBAN, J., Separate Opinion:

1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CERTIORARI; DISMISSAL MADE
PROPER BY THE DEATH OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT, AND FAILURE TO SHOW ABUSE OF
JURISDICTION OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT IN ASSAILED DECISION. — [Mr. Justice, Artemio
V. Panganiban] concur with Mr. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo that the petition [for certiorari
under Rule 65] should be dismissed on two grounds: (1) the private respondent (defendant
in the criminal case below) is already dead, so this Petition has become moot and
academic; and, in any event, (2) the petitioner has failed to show that public respondent, in
issuing the assailed Decision, has acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROPER REMEDY TO CHALLENGE ACQUITTAL ON THE GROUND
OF ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a
proper remedy to challenge an acquittal on the ground that the trial court had acted
without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. This is a hornback doctrine.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT VIOLATIVE OF RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY. — By
contending that the challenged Decision is void for having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the petition does not violate the
right of the accused against double jeopardy. It is elementary that double jeopardy
attaches only when the following elements concur: (1) the accused are charged under a
complaint or information su cient in form and substance to sustain their conviction; (2)
the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused have been arraigned and have pleaded; and (4)
they are convicted or acquitted, or the case is dismissed without their consent. Thus, even
assuming that a writ of certiorari is granted, the accused would not be placed in double
jeopardy because, from the very beginning, the lower tribunal had acted without
jurisdiction. Precisely, any ruling issued without jurisdiction is, in legal contemplation,
necessarily null and void and does not exist. In criminal cases, it cannot be the source of an
acquittal.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT PROPER FROM RE-EVALUATION OF TRIAL COURT'S
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE. — The instant Petition for Certiorari, however, fails to show
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the trial
court. Rather, it effectively urges this Court to re-evaluate the lower court's appreciation of
the evidence, which cannot be done by certiorari. EICDSA
DECISION
BELLOSILLO , J : p

This case nudges the Court to revisit the doctrine on double jeopardy, a revered
constitutional safeguard against exposing the accused to the risk of answering twice for
the same offense. In this case, after trial on the merits, the accused was acquitted for
insu ciency of the evidence against him in the cases for murder and frustrated murder
(although his co-accused was convicted), and nding in the illegal carrying of rearm that
the act charged did not constitute a violation of law. But the State through this petition for
certiorari would want his acquittal reversed.
We narrate a brief factual backdrop.
The idyllic morning calm in San Ildefonso, Bulacan, a small town north of Manila, was
shattered by gunshots red in rapid succession. The shooting claimed the life of young
Alex Vinculado and seriously maimed his twin brother Levi who permanently lost his left
vision. Their uncle, Miguel Vinculado, Jr. was also shot. A slug tunneled through his right
arm, pierced the right side of his body and burrowed in his stomach where it remained until
extracted by surgical procedure.
As a consequence, three (3) criminal Informations — one (1) for homicide and two
(2) for frustrated homicide — were originally led before the Regional Trial Court of
Malolos, Bulacan, against Honorato Galvez, Mayor of San Ildefonso, and Godofredo Diego,
a municipal employee and alleged bodyguard of the mayor. On 14 December 1993,
however, the charges were withdrawn and a new set led against the same accused
upgrading the crimes to murder (Crim. Case No. 4004-M-93) and frustrated murder (Crim.
Cases Nos. 4005-M-93 and 4006-M-93). Mayor Galvez was charged, in addition, with
violation of PD 1866 (Crim. Case No. 4007-M-94) for unauthorized carrying of rearm
outside his residence; hence, a fourth Information had to be filed. ICDcEA
After a series of legal maneuvers by the parties, venue of the cases was transferred
to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Metro Manila. There the cases were stamped
with new docket numbers (Nos. Q-94-55484, Q-94-55485, Q-94-55486 and Q-94-55487,
respectively), and ra ed to Branch 103 presided over by Judge Jaime Salazar, Jr. In the
course of the proceedings, the judge inhibited himself and the cases were re-ra ed to
respondent Judge Tirso D.C. Velasco of Branch 89.
On 8 October 1996 a consolidated decision on the four (4) cases was promulgated.
The trial court found the accused Godofredo Diego guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimes of murder and double frustrated murder. However, it acquitted Mayor Honorato
Galvez of the same charges due to insu ciency of evidence. It also absolved him from the
charge of illegal carrying of firearm upon its finding that the act was not a violation of law.
The acquittal of accused Honorato Galvez is now vigorously challenged by the
Government before this Court in a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court and Sec. 1, Art. VIII, of the Constitution. It is the submission of petitioner that the
exculpation of the accused Galvez from all criminal responsibility by respondent Judge
Tirso Velasco constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Allegedly, in holding in favor of Galvez, the judge deliberately and wrongfully disregarded
certain facts and evidence on record which, if judiciously considered, would have led to a
nding of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner proposes that this
patently gross judicial indiscretion and arbitrariness should be recti ed by a re-
examination of the evidence by the Court upon a determination that a review of the case
will not transgress the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. It is urged that
this is necessary because the judgment of acquittal should be nulli ed and substituted
with a verdict of guilt.
The main hypothesis of the Government is that elevating the issue of criminal
culpability of private respondent Galvez before this Tribunal despite acquittal by the trial
court should not be considered violative of the constitutional right of the accused against
double jeopardy, for it is now settled constitutional doctrine in the United States that the
Double Jeopardy Clause permits a review of acquittals decreed by US trial magistrates
where, as in this case, no retrial is required should judgment be overturned. 1 Since
Philippine concepts on double jeopardy have been sourced from American constitutional
principles, statutes and jurisprudence, particularly the case of Kepner v. United States, 2
and because similarly in this jurisdiction a retrial does not follow in the event an acquittal
on appeal is reversed, double jeopardy should also be allowed to take the same directional
course. Petitioner in this regard urges the Court to take a second look at Kepner, it being
the "cornerstone of the battlement of the Double Jeopardy Clause" in the Philippines 3 and
seriously examine whether the precedents it established almost a century ago are still
germane and useful today in view of certain modi cations wrought on the doctrine by the
succeeding American cases of United States v. Wilson 4 and United States v. Scott. 5
Two (2) threshold issues therefore, interlocked as they are, beg to be addressed.
One is the propriety of certiorari as an extraordinary mode of review under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court where the result actually intended is the reversal of the acquittal of private
respondent Galvez. The other is the permissibility of a review by the Court of a judgment of
acquittal in light of the constitutional interdict against double jeopardy.
The recent untimely demise of respondent Galvez at the hands of alleged assassins
(not discounting to the earlier dismissal of respondent judge from the service) may
arguably have rendered these matters moot and academic, thus calling for a dismissal of
the petition on this basis alone. The Court however is not insensitive to nor oblivious of the
paramount nature and object of the pleas forcefully presented by the Government
considering especially the alleged new directions in American jurisprudence taken by the
doctrine of double jeopardy. We are thus impelled to respond to the issues advanced by
petitioner for these bear unquestionably far-reaching contextual signi cance and
implications in Philippine juristic philosophy and experience, demanding no less, explicit
and definitive rulings.
For it may be argued from a historico-analytical perspective that perhaps none of
the constitutionally ensconced rights of men has followed a more circuitous and tortuous
route in the vast sea of jurisprudence than the right of a person not to be tried or
prosecuted a second time for the same offense. 6 This prohibition does not consist merely
of one rule but several, each rule applying to a different situation, each rule marooned in a
sea of exceptions. 7 It must have been this unique transpiration that prompted even the
redoubtable Mr. Justice Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Court to remark in Albernaz v.
United States 8 that "the decisional law (in the area of double jeopardy) is a veritable
Sargasso Sea which could not fail to challenge the most intrepid judicial navigator." It is
therefore necessary that, in forming a correct perspective and full understanding of the
doctrine on double jeopardy and the rules so far established relative to the effect thereon
of appeals of judgments of acquittal, a compendious review of its historical growth and
development be undertaken. This approach is particularly helpful in properly situating and
analyzing landmark interpretive applications of the doctrine in light of the varying legal and
factual milieu under which it evolved.IcaHTA
Jeopardy, itself "a ne poetic word," 9 derives from the Latin "jocus" meaning joke,
jest or game, 1 0 and also from the French term "jeu perdre" which denotes a game that one
might lose. Similarly, the Middle English word "iuparti" or "jupartie" means an uncertain
game. 1 1 The genesis of the concept itself however rests deep in the ancient Grecian view
of tragedy and suffering and in the old Roman legal concepts of punishment. Greek law
bound prosecutor and judge to the original verdict as can be seen in the remark of
Demosthenes in 355 B. C. that "the laws forbid the same man to be tried twice on the
same issue." 1 2 The Justinian Digest 1 3 providing that "(a) governor should not permit the
same person to be again accused of crime of which he has been acquitted," 1 4 suggests
certain philosophical underpinnings believed to have been in uenced by works of the great
Greek tragedians of the 5th century B.C. re ecting man's "tragic vision" or the tragic view
of life. For the ancient Greeks believed that man was continuously pitted against a superior
force that dictated his own destiny. But this prevailing view was not to be taken in the
sense of man passing from one misfortune to another without relief, as this idea was
repugnant to Greek sensibilities. Rather, it expressed a universal concept of catharsis or
vindication that meant misfortune resolving itself into a nal triumph, and persecution, into
freedom and liberation. To suffer twice for the same misfortune was anathema to ancient
thought.
The 18th century B. C. Babylonian king and lawgiver Hammurabi recognized that
humans could err in prosecuting and rendering judgment, thus limits were needed on
prosecutors and judges. A gruesome but effective way of preventing a second trial by the
same prosecutor after an acquittal can be found in the rst law of the Hammurabic Code:
"If a man has accused a man and has charged him with manslaughter and then has not
proved [it against him], his accuser shall be put to death." 1 5
The repugnance to double trials strongly expressed by the Catholic Church is
consistent with the interpretation by St. Jerome in 391 A. D. of the promise by God to his
people through the prophet Nahum that "(a) iction shall not rise up the second time" 1 6
and "(t)hough I have a icted thee, I will a ict thee no more." 1 7 Taken to mean that God
does not punish twice for the same act, the maxim insinuated itself into canon law as early
as 847 A. D., succinctly phrased as "(n)ot even God judges twice for the same act." 1 8
The most famous cause célèbre on double jeopardy in the Middle Ages was the
dispute between the English King Henry II and his good friend, Thomas á Becket,
Archbishop of Canterbury. Henry wished to continue the observance of certain customs
initiated by his predecessors called "avitae consuetudines," one of the known purposes of
which was that clerics convicted of crimes before Church courts be delivered to lay
tribunals for punishment. He asserted in the Constitutions of Clarendon that the clergy
were also subject to the king's punishment. This was met with stinging criticism and stiff
opposition by the Archbishop who believed that allowing this practice would expose the
clergy to double jeopardy. The issue between the two erstwhile friends was never resolved
and remained open-ended, for Thomas was later on mercilessly murdered in his cathedral,
allegedly at the instance of his king. 1 9
It was in England though, a century ago, that double jeopardy was formally
institutionalized "as a maxim of common law" 2 0 based on the universal principles of
reason, justice and conscience, about which the Roman Cicero commented: "Nor is it one
thing at Rome and another at Athens, one now and another in the future, but among all
nations, it is the same." 2 1 But even as early as the 15th century, the English courts already
began to use the term "jeopardy" in connection with the doctrine against multiple trials. 2 2
Thereafter, the principle appeared in the writings of Hale (17th c.), Lord Coke (17th c.) and
Blackstone (18th c.). 2 3 Lord Coke for instance described the protection afforded by the
rule as a function of three (3) related common law pleas: autrefois acquit, autrefois convict
and pardon. 2 4 In Vaux's Case , 2 5 it was accepted as established that "the life of a man
shall not be twice put in jeopardy for one and the same offense, and that is the reason and
cause that autrefois acquitted or convicted of the same offense is a good plea . . ."
Blackstone likewise observed that the plea of autrefois acquit or a formal acquittal is
grounded on the universal maxim of the common law of England that "(n)o man is to be
brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offense. And hence, it is
allowed as a consequence that when a man is once fairly found not guilty upon any
indictment, or other prosecution before any court having competent jurisdiction of the
offense, he may plead such acquittal in bar of any subsequent accusation for the same
crime." 2 6
The English dogma on double jeopardy, recognized as an "indispensable
requirement of a civilized criminal procedure," became an integral part of the legal system
of the English colonies in America. The Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641, an early
compilation of principles drawn from the statutes and common law of England, grandly
proclaimed that "(n)o man shall be twice sentenced by Civil Justice for one and the same
crime, offence or Trespasse " and that "(e)verie Action between partie and partie, and
proceedings against delinquents in Criminal causes shall be brie y and distinctly entered
on the Rolles of every Court by the Recorder thereof." 2 7 Ineluctably, this pronouncement
became the springboard for the proposal of the First Congress of the United States that
double jeopardy be included in the Bill of Rights. It acknowledged that the tradition against
placing an individual twice in danger of a second prosecution for the same offense
followed ancient precedents in English law and legislation derived from colonial
experiences and necessities. Providing abundant grist for impassioned debate in the US
Congress, the proposal was subsequently rati ed as part of the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution.
In 1817 the Supreme Court of Tennessee dismissed an appeal by the State after an
acquittal from perjury, declaring that: "A writ of error, or appeal in the nature of a writ of
error, will not lie for the State in such a case. It is a rule of common law that no one shall be
brought twice into jeopardy for one and the same offense. Were it not for this salutary rule,
one obnoxious to the government might be harassed and run down by repeated attempts
to carry on a prosecution against him. Because of this rule, a new trial cannot be granted in
a criminal case where the defendant is acquitted. A writ of error will lie for the defendant,
but not against him." 2 8 Verily, these concepts were founded upon that great fundamental
rule of common law, " Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa," in substance
expressed in the Constitution of the United States as: "Nor shall any person be subject for
the same offense, to be twice put into jeopardy of life or limb." It is in the spirit of this
benign rule of the common law, embodied in the Federal Constitution — a spirit of liberty
and justice, tempered with mercy — that, in several states of the Union, in criminal cases, a
writ of error has been denied to the State. 2 9
The relationship between the prohibition against second jeopardy and the power to
order a new trial following conviction or dismissal stirred a no small amount of
controversy in United States v. Gibert. 3 0 There, Mr. Justice Story, on circuit, declared that
"the court had no power to grant a new trial when the rst trial had been duly had on a valid
indictment before a court of competent jurisdiction." The opinion formulated was that the
prohibition against double jeopardy applied equally whether the defendant had been
acquitted or convicted.
But it must be noted that even in those times, the power to grant a new trial in the
most serious cases was already being exercised by many American courts, the practice
having been observed from an early date, inspite of provisions of law against double
jeopardy. 3 1 For this reason, the rule in Gibert was stoutly resisted. 3 2 As if to taunt Gibert,
the 1839 case of United States v. Keen 3 3 declared that the constitutional provision did not
prohibit a new trial on defendant's motion after a conviction. In Hopt v. Utah, 3 4 the
defendant was retried three (3) times following reversals of his convictions.
Then in 1896 the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Ball 3 5 a rmed that the
double jeopardy rule did not prevent a second trial when, on appeal, a conviction had been
set aside. It declared that a defendant who procured on appeal a reversal of a judgment
against him could be tried anew upon the same indictment or upon another indictment for
the same offense of which he had been convicted. This principle of autrefois convict was
expanded nine (9) years later in Trono v . United States 3 6 where the Court a rmed the
judgment of the Supreme Court of the Philippines by holding that "since the plaintiffs in
error had appealed their convictions of the lower offense in order to secure a reversal,
there was no bar to convicting them of the higher offense in proceedings in the appellate
court that were tantamount to a new trial." Mr. Justice Peckham, holding for the Court,
concluded that "the better doctrine is that which does not limit the court or the jury upon a
new trial, to a consideration of the question of guilt of the lower offense of which the
accused was convicted on the rst trial, but that the reversal of the judgment of conviction
opens up the whole controversy and acts upon the original judgment as if it had never
been." 3 7 It was ratiocinated that the result was justi ed not only on the theory that the
accused had waived their right not to be retried but also on the ground that "the
constitutional provision was really never intended to . . . cover the case of a judgment . . .
which has been annulled at the request of the accused . . ." cDTaSH
It must be stressed though that Ball also principally ruled that it had long been
settled under the Fifth Amendment that a verdict of acquittal is nal, ending a defendant's
jeopardy, and, even when "not followed by any judgment, is a bar to a subsequent
prosecution for the same offense. It is one of the elemental principles of our criminal law
that the Government cannot secure a new trial by means of an appeal, even though an
acquittal may appear to be erroneous."
In 1891 the United States Judiciary Act was passed providing that appeals or writs
of error may be taken from the district court or from the existing circuit courts direct to
the Supreme Court in any case that involved the construction of the Constitution. The
following year an issue was raised in United States v. Sanges 3 8 on whether this Act
conferred upon the government the right to sue out a writ of error in any criminal case. In
that case, existing rules on double jeopardy took a signi cant turn when the United States
Supreme Court observed that while English law was vague on the matter, it had been
settled by overwhelming American authority that the State had no right to sue out a writ of
error upon a judgment in favor of the defendant in a criminal case, except under and in
accordance with express statutes, whether that judgment was rendered upon a verdict of
acquittal, or upon the determination by the court of a question of law. The Court noted that
in a few states, decisions denying a writ of error to the State after a judgment for the
defendant on a verdict of acquittal proceeded upon the ground that to grant it would be to
put him twice in jeopardy, in violation of the constitutional provision. 3 9 Sanges therefore
xed the rule that absent explicit legislative authority, the United States Government had
no right of appeal in criminal cases in case of an acquittal as it would expose the
defendant twice to jeopardy.
Notably, however, in 1892 the Attorneys General of the United States began to
recommend the passage of legislation allowing the Government to appeal in criminal
cases. Their primary objective was to resist the power of a single district judge (under the
law then obtaining) by dismissing an indictment to defeat any criminal prosecution
instituted by the Government. No action was taken on the proposal until 1906 when
President Theodore Roosevelt in his annual message to the US Congress demanded the
enactment of legislation on the matter. Consequently, on 2 March 1907 such legislative
authority was provided when the Criminal Appeals Act became a law 4 0 permitting the
United States to seek a writ of error from the Supreme Court from any decision dismissing
all indictment on the basis of the "invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the
indictments is founded." 4 1 The law narrowed the right to appeal by the Government to
cases in which the ground of the District Court's decision was invalidity or construction of
the statute upon which the charge was founded, and that a verdict in favor of the
defendant based on evidence could not be set aside on appeal no matter how erroneous
the legal theory upon which it may be based. For these purposes, it made no difference
whether the verdict be the result of the jury's decision or that of the judge. In other words,
Government could appeal from a decision dismissing an indictment or arresting judgment
on the basis of the statutory invalidity or misconstruction of the pertinent criminal statute
and from a decision sustaining a special plea in bar, so long as the defendant would not be
put in jeopardy. 4 2
On 10 December 1898 the Philippine Islands was ceded by Spain to the United
States by virtue of the Treaty of Paris of 1898 which was ratified by the State Parties on 11
April 1899. The Islands was placed under military rule until the establishment of the
Philippine Commission in 1902. On 23 April 1900 the military government issued General
Order No. 58 which amended the Code of Criminal Procedure then in force by, among
others, extending to the Islands the double jeopardy provision under the Fifth Amendment
of the US Constitution. This was pursuant to the 7 April 1900 Instructions of President
McKinley issued to the Philippine Commission headed by William Howard Taft. The
Instructions read in part: " . . . the Commission should bear in mind, and the people of the
Islands should be made to understand, that there are certain great principles of
government which have been made the basis of our governmental system, which we deem
essential to the rule of law . . . and maintained in their islands for the sake of their liberty
and happiness, however much they may con ict with the customs or laws of procedure
with which they are familiar . . . Upon every division and branch of the Government of the
Philippines therefore must be imposed these inviolable rules: . . . that . . . no person shall be
put twice in jeopardy for the same offense . . ." 4 3
General Order No. 58 was amended by Act No. 194 which permitted an appeal by
the government after acquittal. The Philippine Civil Government Act of 1 July 1902 of the
U.S. Congress repealed the Act, adopted and restored the same principle in Gen. Order No.
58 as enunciated in the Fifth Amendment and in McKinley's Instructions by providing
immunity from second jeopardy for the same criminal offense. It did not take long
however for the meaning and signi cance of the doctrine held forth in McKinley's
Instructions to be placed under severe test and scrutiny.
In 1901 Mr. Thomas E. Kepner, a practicing lawyer in Manila, Philippines, was
charged with embezzlement of funds (estafa). He was tried by a court of rst instance,
minus a jury, and was acquitted of the crime. The U.S. Government appealed to the
Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands and judgment was reversed. Kepner was
sentenced with imprisonment and suspended from public office or place of trust.
Questioning his conviction before the US Supreme Court, Kepner argued that the
appeal by the US government to the Philippine Supreme Court of his judgment of acquittal
constituted double jeopardy construed in light of existing US jurisprudence. On the other
hand, the Attorney General for the Philippines and the Solicitor General of the United States
jointly contended that the Philippine Bill of 1 July 1902 which included the prohibition
against double jeopardy should be construed from the perspective of the system of laws
prevailing in the Philippines prior to its cession to the United States. Under this system, the
Audiencia (Supreme Court) could entertain an appeal of a judgment of acquittal since the
proceedings before it were regarded not as a new trial but an extension of preliminary
proceedings in the court of rst instance. The entire proceedings constituted one
continuous trial and the jeopardy that attached in the court of rst instance did not
terminate until nal judgment had been rendered by the Audiencia, Double jeopardy was
described not only in the Spanish law Fuero Real 4 4 as: "After a man accused of any crime
has been acquitted by the court, no one can afterwards accuse him of the same offense
(except in certain speci ed cases), but also in the Siete Partidas 4 5 which provided that: "If
a man is acquitted by a valid judgment of any offense of which he has been accused, no
other person can afterwards accuse him of the offense . . ." Under this system of law, a
person was not regarded as jeopardized in the legal sense until there had been a nal
judgment in the court of last resort. The lower courts then were deemed examining courts,
exercising preliminary jurisdiction only, and the accused was not nally convicted or
acquitted until the case had been passed upon in the Audiencia or Supreme Court, whose
judgment was subject to review by the Supreme Court in Madrid (Spain) for errors of law,
with power to grant a new trial.
The U.S. Supreme Court however threw out the Government's argument and held
that the proceedings after acquittal had placed the accused Kepner twice in jeopardy. It
declared in no uncertain terms that the appeal of the judgment of conviction was in
essence a trial de novo and that, whatever the Spanish tradition was, the purpose of
Congress was to carry some at least of the essential principles of American constitutional
jurisprudence to the Islands and to engraft them upon the law of these people newly
subject to its jurisdiction. There was little question therefore that Kepner soldered into
American jurisprudence the precedent that as to the defendant who had been acquitted by
the verdict duly returned and received, the court could take no other action than to order
his discharge. ". . . (I)t is then the settled law of this court that former jeopardy includes
one who has been acquitted by a verdict duly rendered, although no judgment be entered
on the verdict, and it was found upon a defective indictment. The protection is not . . .
against the peril of second punishment, but against being tried again for the same
offense." 4 6
This doctrine was echoed in United States v. Wills 4 7 where the Court further
clari ed that "jeopardy implies an exposure to a lawful conviction for an offense of which a
person has already been acquitted . . ." It was reiterated in 1957 in Green v. United States
4 8 in which Mr. Justice Black, writing for the Court, professed that the constitutional
prohibition against double jeopardy was designed to protect an individual from being
subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged
offense. Thus, under the Fifth Amendment, a verdict of acquittal was considered nal,
ending the accused's jeopardy and that once a person has been acquitted of an offense, he
cannot be prosecuted again on the same charge.
American jurisprudence on the effect of appealed acquittals on double jeopardy
since then sailed on, following the main sea lanes charted by Kepner, but not without
encountering perturbance along the way. For it may be mentioned, albeit en passant, that
the case of Bartkus v. Illinois 4 9 did cause some amount of judicial soul-shaking in 1959
when it burst into the scene. Alfonse Bartkus was tried before a federal district court in
Illinois and was later acquitted by the jury. Less than a year later, Bartkus was indicted this
time by an Illinois grand jury on facts substantially identical to those of the federal charge
and was subsequently convicted. His conviction was a rmed by the Illinois Supreme
Court.
O n certiorari, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a close vote of 5 to 4, a rmed the
conviction. The Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Frankfurter, declared that the Fifth
Amendment's double jeopardy provision was inapplicable to states so that an acquittal of
a federal indictment was no bar to a prosecution by a state based on the same charge.
Since there was no proof offered to show that the participation of the federal authorities in
the Illinois state prosecution was of such nature as to render the state proceedings a mere
cover for a federal prosecution to render the state indictment essentially a constitutionally
prohibited second prosecution, no double jeopardy attached.
Mr. Justice Black dissented, joined in by Mr. Chief Justice Warren and Mr. Justice
Douglas, with Mr. Justice Brennan writing a separate dissenting opinion. Black rued that
the Court's ruling by a majority of one only resulted in "further limiting the already
weakened constitutional guarantees against double prosecution," citing the earlier case of
United States v. Lanza, 5 0 where the Court allowed the federal conviction and punishment
of a man previously convicted and punished for identical acts by a state court. The dissent
called attention to the fact that in Bartkus, for the rst time in its history, the Court allowed
the state conviction of a defendant already acquitted of the same offense in the federal
court. This, Mr. Justice Black asserted, was unacceptable, for as the Court previously
found in Palko v. Connecticut, 5 1 "double prosecutions for the same offense are so
contrary to the spirit of our free country that they violate even the prevailing view of the
Fourteenth Amendment since some of the privileges and immunities of the Bill of Rights . .
. have been taken over and brought within the Fourteenth Amendment by process of
absorption . . . One may infer, from the fewness of the cases, that retrials after acquittal
have been considered particularly obnoxious, worse even, in the eyes of many, than retrials
after conviction." HASTCa
Whether such forceful pronouncements steered back into course meandering views
on double jeopardy is open to question. Nonetheless, the case of Fong Foo v. United
States, 5 2 decided per curiam, rea rmed the pronouncements in Ball and Kepner that "the
verdict of acquittal was nal, and could not be reviewed . . . without putting (the
petitioners) twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution."
In the meantime, from 1907 up to 1970 the Criminal Appeals Act underwent
signi cant alterations. The 1942 amendment of its Section 682 permitted for the rst time
appeals to the circuit appeals court from orders sustaining demurrer to indictment in
cases not directly appealable to the Supreme Court. 5 3 However, due to the many
modi cations the law was subjected to, construction and interpretation became more
laborious, effectively transforming appeals into highly technical procedures. As such, the
Criminal Appeals Act developed into a judicial "bete noire," for even the U.S. Supreme Court
itself had "to struggle in a number of occasions with the vagaries of the said Act." 5 4 In one
of those unhappy efforts, it concluded that the Act was "a failure . . . a most unruly child
that has not improved with age." 5 5
The U.S. Congress nally got rid of the dismal statute in 1970 and replaced it with a
new Criminal Appeals Act intended to broaden the right of Government to appeal
whenever the Constitution would permit. It was apparent that the legislative body left to
the courts the prerogative to draw the constitutional limits of double jeopardy rather than
de ne them itself. Since then, pronouncements by the courts on the double jeopardy
guarantee of the Fifth Amendment focused on three (3) related protections: against a
second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; against a second prosecution for
the same offense after conviction; and, against multiple punishments for the same
offense. 5 6
I n Wilson, 5 7 the Court expressed that the interests underlying these three (3)
protections are quite similar. Thus, when a defendant has been once convicted and
punished for a particular crime, principles of fairness and nality require that he be not
subjected to the possibility of further punishment by being tried or sentenced for the same
offense. 5 8 And when a defendant has been acquitted of an offense, the Clause guarantees
that the State shall not be permitted to make repeated attempts to convict him, "thereby
subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a
continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even
though innocent he may be found guilty." 5 9 It can thus be inferred from these cases that
the policy of avoiding multiple trials has been considered paramount so that exceptions to
the rule have been permitted only in few instances and under rigid conditions.
Accordingly, in United States v. Scott 6 0 the US Supreme Court synthesized two (2)
venerable principles of double jeopardy jurisprudence: rst , the successful appeal of a
judgment of conviction on any ground other than the insu ciency of the evidence to
support the verdict poses no bar to further prosecution on the same charge; and second, a
judgment of acquittal, whether based on a jury verdict of not guilty or on a ruling by the
court that the evidence is insu cient to convict, may not be appealed and terminates the
prosecution when a second trial would be necessitated by a reversal. 6 1 It would seem that
the conditionality of "when a second trial would be necessitated by a reversal" was
attached thereto because ordinarily, the procedure obtaining was that if on appeal a
judgment of acquittal is reversed, i.e., a nding is had against the defendant, a remand of
the case for another trial may be allowed if needed.
At this juncture, it must be explained that under existing American law and
jurisprudence, appeals may be had not only from criminal convictions but also, in some
limited instances, from dismissals of criminal charges, sometimes loosely termed
"acquittals." But this is so as long as the judgments of dismissals do not involve
determination of evidence, such as when the judge: (a) issues a post-verdict acquittal, i.e.,
acquits the defendant on a matter of law after a verdict of guilty has been entered by a trier
of facts (a jury); (b) orders the dismissal on grounds other than insu ciency of evidence,
as when the statute upon which the indictment was based is defective; (c) conducts a
judicial process that is defective or awed in some fundamental respect, such as incorrect
receipt or rejection of evidence, incorrect instructions, or prosecutorial misconduct; (d)
issues an order arresting judgment, i.e., an act of a trial judge refusing to enter judgment
on the verdict because of an error appearing on the face of the record that rendered the
judgment; 6 2 or, (e) pronounces judgment on a special plea in bar (a non obstante plea) —
one that does not relate to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but which is set up as a
special defense relating to an outside matter but which may have been connected with the
case. 6 3 Interestingly, the common feature of these instances of dismissal is that they all
bear on questions of law or matters unrelated to a factual resolution of the case which
consequently, on appeal, will not involve a review of evidence. Its logical effect in American
law is to render appeals therefrom non-repugnant to the Double Jeopardy Clause.
This contextual situation in which appeals from dismissals of criminal cases are
allowed under American rules of procedure does not obtain in the Philippines. To be sure,
United States v. Scott positively spelled out that if an acquittal was based on an
appreciation of the evidence adduced, no appeal would lie. Mr. Justice Rehnquist explained
that what may seem super cially to be a "disparity in the rules governing a defendant's
liability to be tried again" refers to the underlying purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
He elaborated that "(a)s Kepner a n d Fong Foo illustrate, the law attaches particular
signi cance to an acquittal. To permit a second trial after an acquittal however mistaken . .
. would present an unacceptably high risk that the Government, with its vastly superior
resources, might wear down the defendant so that even though innocent he may be found
guilty. . . . On the other hand, to require a criminal defendant to stand trial again after he has
successfully invoked the statutory right of appeal to upset his rst conviction is not an act
of governmental oppression of the sort against which the . . . Clause was intended to
protect."
In proposing a re-evaluation of Philippine jurisprudence on double jeopardy,
petitioner insists that Wilson and Scott have unquestionably altered the seascape of
double jeopardy previously navigated by Kepner a n d Ball. Using as its agship the
pronouncement in Wilson that appeals of acquittal are possible provided the accused will
not be subjected to a second trial, it argues that this should apply to the case at bar
because, anyway, a review of the acquittal of private respondent Honorato Galvez will not
result in another trial inasmuch as the Court will only have to examine the evidence
adduced below to pass final judgment on the culpability of the accused.
Petitioner's own hermeneutic sense of the phrase " another trial" is that which solely
adverts to a proceeding before a competent trial court that rehears the case and receives
evidence anew to establish the facts after the case has been nally disposed of by the
Supreme Court. Obviously, it adheres to the Holmesian hypothesis in Kepner and, for that
matter, the concept under Spanish law then applicable in the Philippines before the
American colonization, that a trial consists of one whole continuing process from
reception of evidence by a trier of facts up to its nal disposition by the Supreme Court.
But petitioner conveniently forgets that this theory has been consistently spurned by both
American and Philippine jurisprudence that has faithfully adhered to the doctrine that an
appeal of a judgment after the defendant had been acquitted by the court in a bench trial
is, quintessentially, a new trial. In Kepner, the Court regarded the two (2) events, i.e., trial by
the lower court and the appellate proceedings, as equivalent to two (2) separate trials, and
the evil that the Court saw in the procedure was plainly that of multiple prosecutions. 6 4
Although Kepner technically involved only one proceeding, the Court deemed the second
fact nding, that is, the review by the appellate court, as the equivalent of a second trial.
Accordingly, in subsequent cases, the Court has treated the Kepner principle as being
addressed to the evil of successive trials. 6 5
No less than the case of Wilson, 6 6 petitioner's main anchor for its propositions,
a rms this rule. There, the Court emphasized that it has, up to the present, rejected the
theory espoused by the dissenting Mr. Justice Holmes in Kepner that "a man cannot be
said to be more than once in jeopardy in the same cause however often he may be tried.
The jeopardy is one continuing jeopardy, from its beginning to the end of the cause." It
declared unequivocally that "we continue to be of the view that the policies underlying the
Double Jeopardy Clause militate against permitting the Government to appeal after a
verdict of acquittal." Wilson therefore pronounced that if acquittal is declared on the basis
of evidence adduced, double jeopardy attaches for that particular cause.
To explain further, Wilson involved an appeal by Government of a post-verdict ruling
of law issued by the trial judge resulting in the acquittal of the defendant due to pre-
indictment delay (a delay between the offense and the indictment prejudiced the
defendant) after a verdict of guilty had been entered by the jury. But it was not an acquittal
that involved "factual resolution." It was one anchored on an extraneous cause. Factual
resolution is de ned in United States v. Sorenson 6 7 following the rulings in Ball, Fong Foo
and Sisson as "the nding that government failed to prove all the elements of the offense "
It is clear therefore that the acquittal of Wilson, not being based on evidence, could be
appealed. The rule therefore xed in Wilson is that where a judge holds for the defendant
on a ruling of law, and not on the basis of evidence, after a jury entered a verdict of guilty,
the prosecution may appeal the acquittal without violating double jeopardy, as this is
allowed under the pertinent law. 6 8 This is so since no second trial will ensue, as a reversal
on appeal would merely reinstate the jury's verdict. 6 9 And if the prosecution is upheld, the
case simply goes back to the trial court for disposition of the remaining matters. It bears
emphasis that in Wilson, no double jeopardy problem was presented because the
appellate court, upon reviewing the asserted legal errors of the trial judge, could simply
order the jury's guilty verdict reinstated, no new fact- nding would be necessary, and the
defendant would not be put twice in jeopardy. 7 0
The case of Scott, also considerably relied upon by petitioner, involved an
accused who, having been indicted for several offenses, himself moved for the
dismissal of two (2) counts of the charges on the ground that his defense was
prejudiced by pre-indictment delay. The trial judge granted the motion. Government
appealed the dismissals but the appellate court rejected the appeal on the basis of
double jeopardy. This time the US Supreme Court reversed, holding that "(w)here a
defendant himself seeks to avoid his trial prior to its conclusion by a motion for a
mistrial, the Double Jeopardy Clause is not offended by a second prosecution. Such a
motion by the defendant is deemed to be a deliberate election on his part to forego his
valued right to have his guilt or innocence determined by the first trier of facts."
The inapplicability of this ruling to the case at bar is at once discernible. The
dismissal of the charges against private respondent Galvez was not upon his own
instance; neither did he seek to avoid trial, as it was in Scott, to be considered as having
waived his right to be adjudged guilty or innocent. Here, trial on the merits was held
during which both government and accused had their respective day in court.
We are therefore insu ciently persuaded to adopt petitioner's concept of
"another trial" because, as discussed above, it disregards the contextual interpretation
of the term in light of the legal and factual morphology of the double jeopardy principle
obtaining in Wilson and Scott. To sum up, in the cause before us, the records show that
respondent trial judge based his nding of acquittal, no matter how erroneous it might
seem to petitioner, upon the evidence presented by both parties. The judgment here
was no less than a factual resolution of the case. Thus, to the extent that the post-
verdict acquittal in Wilson was based on a ruling of law and not on a resolution of facts,
Wilson is not, to reiterate, pertinent to nor persuasive in the case at bar. The same
observation holds true for Scott. That it was the defendant who secured the dismissal
of the charges against him without any submission to either judge or jury as to his guilt
or innocence, but on a ground totally outside evidentiary considerations, i.e., pre-
indictment delay, de nitely forecloses the applicability, if not relevance, of Scott to the
instant case.
Wilson, Scott and all other pertinent American case law considered, it still
behooves us to examine if at this time there is need to rethink our juristic philosophy on
double jeopardy vis-a-vis acquittals. In this respect, it would be instructive to see how
Philippine law and jurisprudence have behaved since Kepner. Has the principle since
then bene cially evolved, or has it remained an "unruly child that has not improved with
age?"
The moorings of double jeopardy in the Philippines, as Mr. Justice Manuel Moran
observed in People v. Tarok, 7 1 are not indigenous but are a matter of constitutional or
statutory history. Enunciated in the Constitution of the United States, from there it
found its way into this country, rst, in the Philippine Bill of 1902, then in the Jones Law
of 1916, and nally, in the 1935 Philippine Constitution. Being thus a mere recognition
of the maxim of the common law, and adopted from the Constitution of the United
States, the principle of double jeopardy followed in this jurisdiction the same line of
development — no narrower nor wider — as in the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence.
While some reservations may be had about the contemporary validity of this
observation considering the variety of offsprings begotten, at least in the United States,
by the mother rule since then, perhaps it is safer to say that not much deviation has
occurred from the general rule laid out in Kepner. For Kepner may be said to have been
the lighthouse for the oundering issues on the effect of acquittals on jeopardy as they
sail safely home. The cases of People v. Bringas, 7 2 People v. Hernandez, 7 3 People v.
Montemayor, 7 4 City Fiscal of Cebu v. Kintanar, 7 5 Republic v. Court of Appeals, 7 6 and
Heirs of Tito Rillorta v. Firme, 7 7 to name a few, are illustrative. Certainly, the reason
behind this has not been due to a stubborn refusal or reluctance to "keep up with the
Joneses," in a manner of speaking, but to maintain delity to the principle carefully
nurtured by our Constitution, statutes and jurisprudence. As early as Julia v. Sotto 7 8 the
Court warned that without this safeguard against double jeopardy secured in favor of
the accused, his fortune, safety and peace of mind would be entirely at the mercy of the
complaining witness who might repeat his accusation as often as dismissed by the
court and whenever he might see t, subject to no other limitation or restriction than his
own will and pleasure.
The 1935 Philippine Constitution provided in its Sec. 20, Art. III, that "(n)o person
shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished
by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution for the same act." The discussions by the members of the
Constitutional Convention of 1934 on the effect on double jeopardy of an appeal from a
judgment of acquittal are enlightening. Foreclosing appeal on a judgment of acquittal
was recognized by the Convention and the proposal to make an appeal from acquittal
permissible even only "on questions of law provided that a verdict in favor of the
defendant shall not be set aside by reason thereof" was strongly voted down. Thus —
MR. GULLAS:
Dear Colleagues . . . I wish to summarize our points. The amendment is

commendable but we submit that the reason against far outweighs the
reason in favor of it. In the rst place it would tend to multiplicity of suits
and thus increase the burden of the Supreme Court. Second, suits will be
expensive if we meet scals who have an exaggerated opinion of
themselves, who have more ego than gray matter or more amor propio. In
the third place, as has been stated by a certain Gentleman, the provision
would convert the Supreme Court into a sort of academy of consulting
body. In the fourth place, as pointed out by Mr. Sevilla, ghts in the
Supreme Court would be one-sided. In the fth place, as demonstrated by
Delegate Labrador, the matter should be procedural rather than
constitutional. And lastly, as explained by Delegate Singson Encarnacion,
should the Supreme Court reverse the judgment of the lower court, the
defendant would suffer morally for the rest of his life. He would walk
around under a veil of humiliation, carrying with him a stigma.
For all these reasons, Mr. President, we oppose the amendment.
PRESIDENT:
We can vote on the amendment. (Various delegates: YES). Those who are in
favor of the amendment please say YES. (A minority: YES). Those against
the amendment say NO. (A majority: NO). The amendment is rejected . . .
(1934 Constitutional Convention Record, Journal No. 95, November 24, 1934, p.
361)
The case of People v. Bringas 7 9 was the rst case to be decided under this
Constitution pertinent to the matter at hand. There the Supreme Court, guided by
Kepner, cited its nding in United States v. Tam Yung Way 8 0 against the right of appeal
by the government from a judgment discharging the defendant in a criminal case after
he has been brought to trial, whether defendant was acquitted on the merits or whether
his discharge was based upon the trial court's conclusion of law that the trial had failed
for some reason to establish his guilt as charged. cTADCH
The Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution, speci cally Sec. 22, Art. IV thereof,
reproduced verbatim the same double jeopardy provision of the 1935 Constitution. So
did the 1987 Freedom Constitution drafted by the 1986 Constitutional Commission.
Noteworthy is that during the deliberations by the 1986 Constitutional
Commission attempts were made to introduce into the Fundamental Law the right of
government to appeal verdicts of acquittal promulgated by trial courts. The proposed
text for Sec. 14, Art. VIII, on the Judicial Department read as follows —
SECTION 12. . . . An appeal by the State and/or offended party from a
judgment of acquittal may be allowed in the discretion of the Supreme Court by a
petition for review on certiorari on the ground that it is manifestly against the
evidence with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. 8 1
This proposal was strongly opposed, the controlling consideration as expressed
by Commissioner Rustico de los Reyes being the "inequality of the parties in power,
situation and advantage in criminal cases where the government, with its unlimited
resources, trained detectives, willing o cers and counsel learned in the law, stands
arrayed against a defendant unfamiliar with the practice of the courts, unacquainted
with their o cers or attorneys, often without means and frequently too terri ed to
make a defense, if he had one, while his character and his life, liberty or property rested
upon the result of the trial." 8 2
Commissioner Joaquin Bernas likewise articulated his fear that "we could be
subjecting an accused individual to a very serious danger of harassment from a
prosecutor . . . The harm, however, which will follow from waving this ag of possibility
of appeal . . . could be much more than letting a guilty person go." 8 3 Put to a vote, the
proposal was defeated. 8 4
Then again, during the debates on double jeopardy under Sec. 23, Art. III, on the
Bill of Rights of the Constitution, Commissioner Ambrosio B. Padilla reopened the
matter already settled at the deliberations on the article on the Judiciary. The following
exchanges ensued:
MR. PADILLA:

. . . On Section 23, on double jeopardy there was Davide resolution which
allowed an appeal in a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case that states:
An acquittal by a trial court is however appealable provided that in such
event the accused shall not be detained or put up bad. This has been
deleted by the Commission . . .
FR. BERNAS:
Yes.
MR. PADILLA:
I recall that when this same idea, but in different phraseology, was presented
and approved by the Committee on the Judiciary, the great objection was
that it would violate the immunity against double jeopardy. But I recall the
sponsor admitted, after I had explained the day before that it did not
violate double jeopardy but it was unnecessary and harmful. What is the
real position, Mr. Presiding Officer? Is it in violation of double jeopardy or is
it just because it need not be stated in the Bill of Rights nor in the Article on
the Judiciary?
FR. BERNAS:
I explained my position on that Mr. Presiding Officer, when we considered the

matter in the Article on the Judiciary. The position I took was that it was
not a departure from existing jurisprudence. In fact, it was more strict than
existing jurisprudence in that it required not just abuse of discretion but it
also required that the judgment be clearly against the evidence.
MR. PADILLA:
That is correct Mr. Presiding O cer because we want to make the exercise
of that right by the state or offended party restrictive not only through a
petition for review on certiorari in the discretion of the Supreme Court
which may dismiss it outright, but also on certain grounds that are really
covered by "in excess or lack of jurisdiction.
But my common impression Mr. Presiding Officer, is that most lawyers are of
the opinion that when a judgment of acquittal is rendered by a trial court,
that is final, executory and not appealable.
Does not the sponsor think, Mr. Presiding O cer, an appeal from an arbitrary
judgment of acquittal rendered by a few corrupt judges of the offended
party or the state will improve the administration of justice?
FR. BERNAS:
Mr. Presiding O cer, I have expressed my position on this when we voted on

Third Reading on the Article on the Judiciary. But if the Commissioner
wants to raise the matter for reconsideration, he can present a motion on
the floor.
Padilla did not ask for a reconsideration. 8 5
The Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure relative to double jeopardy and the
effect thereon of acquittals adhere strictly to constitutional provisions. The pertinent
portions of Sec. 7 of Rule 117 thereof provide —

SECTION 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. — When
an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent
jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge
su cient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused
had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the
dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense
charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any
offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense
charged in the former complaint or information . . .
From this procedural prescription alone, there can be no mistaking the requisites
for invoking double jeopardy: (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) before a
competent court before which the same is led; (c) the defendant had pleaded to the
charge; and, (d) the defendant was acquitted, or convicted, or the case against him
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. 8 6 It bears repeating
that where acquittal is concerned, the rules do not distinguish whether it occurs at the
level of the trial court or on appeal from a judgment of conviction. This rmly
establishes the nality-of-acquittal rule in our jurisdiction. Therefore, as mandated by
our Constitution, statutes and cognate jurisprudence, an acquittal is nal 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 nding
of mistrial, as in Galman v. Sandiganbayan. 8 7 Condemning the trial before the
Sandiganbayan of the murder of former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, which resulted
in the acquittal of all the accused, as a sham, this Court minced no words in declaring
that "[i]t is settled doctrine that double jeopardy cannot be invoked against this Court's
setting aside of the trial court's judgment of acquittal where the prosecution which
represents the sovereign people in criminal cases is denied due process . . . . [T]he
sham trial was but a mock trial where the authoritarian president ordered respondents
Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan to rig the trial, and closely monitored the entire
proceedings to assure the predetermined nal outcome of acquittal and absolution as
innocent of all the respondent-accused . . . . Manifestly, the prosecution and the
sovereign people were denied due process of law with a partial court and biased
Tanodbayan under the constant and pervasive monitoring and pressure exerted by the
authoritarian president to assure the carrying out of his instructions. A dictated,
coerced and scripted verdict of acquittal, such as that in the case at bar, is a void
judgment. In legal contemplation, it is no judgment at all. It neither binds nor bars
anyone. Such a judgment is 'a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw.' It is a
terrible and unspeakable affront to the society and the people. 'To paraphrase
Brandeis: If the authoritarian head of government becomes the lawbreaker, he breeds
contempt for the law; he invites every man to become a law unto himself; he invites
anarchy.' The contention of respondent-accused that the Sandiganbayan judgment of
acquittal ended the case and could not be appealed or reopened without being put in
double jeopardy was forcefully disposed of by the Court in People v. Court of Appeals:
88
. . . That is the general rule and presupposes a valid judgment. As earlier

pointed out, however, respondent Court's Resolution of acquittal was a void
judgment for having been issued without jurisdiction. No double jeopardy
attaches, therefore. A void judgment is, in legal effect, no judgment at all. By it no
rights are divested. Through it, no rights can be attained. Being worthless, all
proceedings founded upon it are equally worthless. It neither binds nor bars
anyone. All acts performed under it and all claims owing out of it are void . . . .
Private respondents invoke 'justice for the innocent.' For justice to prevail the
scales must balance. It is not to be dispensed for the accused alone. The interests
of the society which they have wronged, must also be equally considered. A
judgment of conviction is not necessarily a denial of justice. A verdict of acquittal
neither necessarily spells a triumph of justice. To the party wronged, to the society
offended, it could also mean injustice. This is where the Courts play a vital role.
They render justice where justice is due.
Thus, the doctrine that "double jeopardy may not be invoked after trial" may apply only
when the Court nds that the "criminal trial was a sham" because the prosecution
representing the sovereign people in the criminal case was denied due process. 8 9 The
Court in People v. Bocar 9 0 rationalized that the "remand of the criminal case for further
hearing and/or trial before the lower courts amounts merely to a continuation of the
first jeopardy, and does not expose the accused to a second jeopardy." 9 1
The fundamental philosophy highlighting the nality of an acquittal by the trial
court cuts deep into "the humanity of the laws and in a jealous watchfulness over the
rights of the citizen, when brought in unequal contest with the State. . . ." 9 2 Thus Green
expressed the concern that "(t)he underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least
the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and
power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an
alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and
compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as
enhancing the possibility that even though innocent, he may be found guilty." 9 3
It is axiomatic that on the basis of humanity, fairness and justice, an acquitted
defendant is entitled to the right of repose as a direct consequence of the nality of his
acquittal. The philosophy underlying this rule establishing the absolute nature of
acquittals is "part of the paramount importance criminal justice system attaches to the
protection of the innocent against wrongful conviction." 9 4 The interest in the nality-of-
acquittal rule, con ned exclusively to verdicts of not guilty, is easy to understand: it is a
need for "repose," a desire to know the exact extent of one's liability. 9 5 With this right of
repose, the criminal justice system has built in a protection to insure that the innocent,
even those whose innocence rests upon a jury's leniency, will not be found guilty in a
subsequent proceeding. 9 6
Related to his right of repose is the defendant's interest in his right to have his
trial completed by a particular tribunal. 9 7 This interest encompasses his right to have
his guilt or innocence determined in a single proceeding by the initial jury empanelled to
try him, for society's awareness of the heavy personal strain which the criminal trial
represents for the individual defendant is manifested in the willingness to limit
Government to a single criminal proceeding to vindicate its very vital interest in
enforcement of criminal laws. 9 8 The ultimate goal is prevention of government
oppression; the goal nds its voice in the nality of the initial proceeding. 9 9 As
observed in Lockhart v. Nelson, 1 0 0 "(t)he fundamental tenet animating the Double
Jeopardy Clause is that the State should not be able to oppress individuals through the
abuse of the criminal process." Because the innocence of the accused has been
con rmed by a nal judgment, the Constitution conclusively presumes that a second
trial would be unfair. 1 0 1
Petitioner resists the applicability of the nality-of-acquittal doctrine to the
Philippine adjudicative process on the ground that the principle is endemic to the
American justice system as it has speci c application only to jury verdicts of acquittal,
and thus nds no valid use in our jurisdiction since the "underlying rationale of jury
acquittals, a special feature of American constitutional law, has no parallel nor analogy
in the Philippine legal system." This is a rather strained if not facile approach to the
issue at hand, for it attempts to introduce the theory that insofar as the objective of
fact- nding is concerned, fact- nding forming the core of the philosophy behind double
jeopardy, there exists a difference between a jury acquittal and a "judge acquittal,
Philippine version." To support its contention, petitioner sedulously explains that in the
United States there is an "emerging consensus to differentiate the constitutional
impact of jury verdicts of acquittal vis-a-vis judgments of acquittal rendered by the
bench." While this consensus may have emerged in the United States, it is not di cult
to surmise that it must have been so because of countless instances of con ict
between jury verdicts and judgments of trial judges in the same case. Resultantly,
procedural statutes and jurisprudence have been wont to draw lines of distinction
between the two, hopefully to keep each other at bay. Since this phenomenon does not
occur in our jurisdiction, as we have no juries to speak of, petitioner's hypothesis is
inappropriate. STIcaE
Be that as it may, the invalidity of petitioner's argument lies in its focus on the
instrumentality empowered to rule against the evidence, i.e., the American jury versus
the Philippine judge, no matter how emphatic it quali es its proposition with the phrase
"underlying rationale of jury acquittals," rather than on the essential function of fact-
nding itself which consists of reception, sifting and evaluation of evidence. Where the
main task of fact- nding is concerned, there exists no difference between the American
jury and the Philippine trial judge. Both are triers of facts. This much petitioner has to
concede. The attempt therefore to close the door on the applicability of the nality rule
to our legal system abjectly fails when one considers that, universally, the principal
object of double jeopardy is the protection from being tried for the second time,
whether by jury or judge. Thus, "emerging American consensus on jury acquittals"
notwithstanding, on solid constitutional bedrock is well engraved our own doctrine that
acquittals by judges on evidentiary considerations cannot be appealed by government.
The jurisprudential metes and bounds of double jeopardy having been clearly de ned
by both constitution and statute, the issue of the effect of an appeal of a verdict of
acquittal upon a determination of the evidence on the constitutionally guaranteed right
of an accused against being twice placed in jeopardy should now be finally put to rest.
Petitioner assails the decision rendered by the court a quo as blatantly
inconsistent with the material facts and evidence on record, reason enough to charge
respondent judge with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
resulting in a denial of due process. Citing People v. Pablo, 1 0 2 it alleges that
"respondent aggravated his indiscretion by not . . . reviewing the evidence already
presented for a proper assessment. . . . It is in completely ignoring the evidence already
presented . . . that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion." It
adds that "discretion must be exercised regularly, legally and within the con nes of
procedural due process, i.e., after evaluation of the evidence submitted by the
prosecution. Any order issued in the absence thereof is not a product of sound judicial
discretion but of whim and caprice and outright arbitrariness." 1 0 3
Private respondent remonstrates against the propriety of petitioner's certiorari
as a mode of impugning the judgment of acquittal not only as a strategy to camou age
the issue of double jeopardy but also for the fact that, contrary to petitioner's
assertions, evidence in the case at bar was subjected to scrutiny, review, assessment
and evaluation by respondent trial judge. By reason thereof, there cannot be perceived
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the judge to warrant issuance of the great writ
of certiorari.
We agree. The o ce of the common law writ of certiorari is to bring before the
court for inspection the record of the proceedings of an inferior tribunal in order that
the superior court may determine from the face of the record whether the inferior court
has exceeded its jurisdiction, or has not proceeded according to the essential
requirements of the law. However, the original function and purpose of the writ have
been so modi ed by statutes and judicial decisions. It is particularly so in the eld of
criminal law when the state is applying for the writ and problems arise concerning the
right of the state to appeal in a criminal case. As a general rule, the prosecution cannot
appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment in favor of the defendant in a
criminal case in the absence of a statute clearly conferring that right. The problem
comes into sharper focus when the defendant contends, in effect, that the prosecution
is attempting to accomplish by the writ what it could not do by appeal, and that his
constitutional rights are being thus encroached upon. 1 0 4
Generally, under modern constitutions and statutes, provisions are available as
guides to the court in determining the standing of the prosecution to secure by
certiorari a review of a lower court decision in a criminal case which has favored the
defendant. In most instances, provisions setting forth the scope and function of
certiorari are found together with those relating to the right of the state to appeal or
bring error in criminal matters. There is some indication that courts view the writ of
certiorari as an appeal in itself where the applicant shows that there is no other
adequate remedy available, 1 0 5 and it is not uncommon to nd language in cases to the
effect that the state should not be permitted to accomplish by certiorari what it cannot
do by appeal. 1 0 6 Thus, if a judgment sought to be reviewed was one entered after an
acquittal by a jury or the discharge of the accused on the merits by the trial court, the
standing of the prosecution to review it by certiorari is far more likely to be denied than
if it were such an order as one sustaining a demurrer to, or quashing the indictment, or
granting a motion for arrest of judgment after a verdict of guilty. 1 0 7
Philippine jurisprudence has been consistent in its application of the Double

Jeopardy Clause such that it has viewed with suspicion, and not without good reason,
applications for the extraordinary writ questioning decisions acquitting an accused on
ground of grave abuse of discretion.
The petition at hand which seeks to nullify the decision of respondent judge
acquitting the accused Honorato Galvez goes deeply into the trial court's appreciation
and evaluation in esse of the evidence adduced by the parties. A reading of the
questioned decision shows that respondent judge considered the evidence received at
trial. These consisted among others of the testimonies relative to the positions of the
victims vis-a-vis the accused and the trajectory, location and nature of the gunshot
wounds, and the opinion of the expert witness for the prosecution. While the
appreciation thereof may have resulted in possible lapses in evidence evaluation, it
nevertheless does not detract from the fact that the evidence was considered and
passed upon. This consequently exempts the act from the writ's limiting requirement of
excess or lack of jurisdiction. As such, it becomes an improper object of and therefore
non-reviewable by certiorari. To reiterate, errors of judgment are not to be confused
with errors in the exercise of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., concurs and also with Mr. Justice Panganiban in his separate
opinion.
Puno, J., I also agree with J. Panganiban's separate opinion.
Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes and
De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Melo, J., in the result in view of the death of Mayor Galvez, although I must say that
the discussion on double jeopardy and the separate opinion of Justice Panganiban are well
taken.
Panganiban, J., Please see separate opinion.
Ynares-Santiago, J., is on leave.
Separate Opinions
PANGANIBAN , J .:
I concur with Mr. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo that the Petition at bar should be
dismissed on two grounds: (1) the private respondent (defendant in the criminal case
below) is already dead, so this Petition has become moot and academic; 1 and, in any
event, (2) the petitioner has failed to show that public respondent, in issuing the
assailed Decision, had acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
I write, however, to stress that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court is a proper remedy to challenge an acquittal on the ground that the trial court
had acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. This is a hornbook doctrine. As held by the Court in People v.
Court of Appeals & Maquiling: 2
"To question the jurisdiction of the lower court or agency exercising judicial
or quasi-judicial functions, the remedy is a special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner in such cases must clearly show that
the public respondent acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 3 'By grave abuse of discretion is
meant such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack
of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to
an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law,
or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.' 4
. . . [H]owever, . . . no grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to the
public respondent on the ground of misappreciation of facts and evidence. 5 A
writ of certiorari may not be used to correct a lower tribunal's evaluation of the
evidence and factual ndings. In other words, it is not a remedy for mere errors of
judgment, which are correctable by an appeal or a petition for review under Rules
45 of the Rules of Court. 6
In fine, certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of
procedure or mistakes in the ndings or conclusions of the lower court. 7 As long
as a court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise
of its discretion will amount to nothing more than errors of judgment, which are
reviewable by timely appeal, not by a special civil action for certiorari. 8 "
By contending that the challenged Decision is void for having been issued with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the petition does
not violate the right of the accused against double jeopardy. It is elementary that
double jeopardy attaches only when the following elements concur: (1) the accused are
charged under a complaint or information su cient in form and substance to sustain
their conviction; (2) the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused have been arraigned and
have pleaded; and (4) they are convicted or acquitted, or the case is dismissed without
their consent. 9
Thus, even assuming that a writ of certiorari is granted, the accused would not be
placed in double jeopardy because, from the very beginning, the lower tribunal had
acted without jurisdiction. Precisely, any ruling issued without jurisdiction is, in legal
contemplation, necessarily null and void and does not exist. 1 0 In criminal cases, it
cannot be the source of an acquittal.
The instant Petition for Certiorari, however, fails to show grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court.
Rather, it effectively urges this Court to re-evaluate the lower court's appreciation of the
evidence, which cannot be done by certiorari. As held also in Maquiling :
"While certiorari may be used to correct an abusive acquittal, the petitioner
in such extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the lower court
blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power
to dispense justice. On the other hand, if the petition, regardless of its
nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary review of the ndings of the court a
quo, the constitutional right against double jeopardy would be violated. Such
recourse is tantamount to converting the petition for certiorari into an appeal,
contrary to the express injunction of the Constitution, the Rules of Court and
prevailing jurisprudence on double jeopardy."
WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the Petition. AaHTIE
Footnotes
1. Petition, p. 4; Rollo, p. 5.
2. 195 U.S. 100.
3. Petition, p. 24; Rollo, p. 25.
4. 420 U.S. 332, 43 L. Ed. 2d 232, 95 S. Ct. 1013.

5. 437 U.S. 82, 57 L. Ed. 2d 65, 98 S. Ct. 2187.
6. Moss v. Jones, Ky., 352 S.W. 2d 557-558.
7. Notes and Comments, Twice In Jeopardy, Yale L. J., Vol. 75 at 262.
8. 450 U.S. 333, 67 L. Ed. 2d 284.
9. Akhil Reed Amar, Double Jeopardy Made Simple, The Yale L. J., Vol. 106, Nos. 5 and 6,
March-April 1997.
10. Webster's Third International Dictionary, 1961.
11. The Oxford English Dictionary, 214 (2d., 1989).
12. George C. Thomas III, Double Jeopardy , The History, the Law, New York University
Press, 1998, p. 73.
13. Digest 48, 2.7.2., translated in Scott, The Civil Law, 17.
14. Bartkus v. Illinois, 309 U. S. 121, 3 L. Ed. 2d 706.
15. Thomas, supra.
16. 1 Nahum 9.
17. Id. at 12.
18. Bartkus, supra.
19. See Note 12, p. 74; The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 678.
20. Cooley's Blackstone, 4th Ed., 1899.
21. Batcheldeer, Former Jeopardy , 17 Am. L. Rev. 735, cited in Bartkus, supra.
22. Jeopardy During the Period of the Year Books, 82 U Pa L. Rev. 602 (1934).
23. Notes and Comments, Twice in Jeopardy, Yale L. J., Vol. 75 at 262, 1965, Citing Sigler's
A History of Double Jeopardy, 7 Am. J. Legal History, 283-297, 1963.
24. Ibid.
25. 4 Co Rep 44a, 45a.
26. 4 BI Comm 335, cited in Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 1842, L. Ed. 2d 199, 61 ALR 2d
1119.
27. Green, supra.
28. State v. Reynolds, 4 Hayw. (Tenn. 110).
29. State v. Jone, Ga. 422, 424-425.
30. 2 Summ 19, F. Case No. 15204, 1287, 1294-1303 (1834, CC Mass).
31. United States v. Fries, 1 L. Ed. 701.
32. United States v. Williams, (CC Me), 1 Cliff 5, F. Case No. 16707, pp. 636, 641.
33. (CC Ind) 1 McLean 429, F Case No. 155510, pp. 686, 687-690.
34. 104 U.S. 631.
35. 163 U.S. 662-671.

36. 199 U.S. 521, 50 L. Ed. 292, 26 S. Ct. 121.
37. Id., at 533.
38. 144 U.S. 310-323.
39. State v. Anderson, 3 Smedes & M. 751; State v. Hand, 6 Ark. 169; State v. Burris, 3 Tex.
118; Peo. v. Webb, 38 Cal. 467; Peo v. Swift, 59 Mich. 529, 541.
40. Ch. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246.
41. U.S. v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 57 L. Ed. 2d 65, 98 S. Ct. 2187.
42. U.S. v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 43 L. Ed. 2d 232, 95 S. Ct. 1013.
43. 1 Public Laws of the Philippine Commission, p. 66.
44. A.D. 1255, Lib. Iv., Title xxi, I 13.

45. A.D. 1263, Part vii, Title, i. XII.
46. Ibid.
47. 36 F 2d 855.
48. 355 U.S. 184, 2 L. Ed. 199, 78 S Ct 221, 61 ALR 2d 1119.

49. 359 U.S. 121, 3 L. Ed. 2d 684.
50. 260 U.S. 377, 67 L. Ed. 314, 43 S. Ct. 141.
51. 302 U.S. 319, 326, 82 L. Ed. 288, 58 S. Ct. 149.

52. 369 U.S. 141, 7 L. Ed. 2d 629, 82 S. Ct. 67.
53. United States v. Wayne Pump Co., Ill. 1942, 63 S. Ct. 191, 317 U.S. 200, 87 L. Ed. 184.
54. United States v. Weller, 401 U.S. 254.
55. Wilson, supra, citing United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 307, 26 L. Ed. 2d 608.
56. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 23 L. Ed. 2d 656, 89 S. Ct. 2072.
57. 420 U.S. 332, 43 L. Ed. 2d 232, 95 S. Ct. 1013.
58. Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall 163, 21 L Ed 872; In re Nielsen 131 U.S. 276.
59. Green v. U.S ., 355 U.S. 1842, L. Ed. 2d 199, 61 ALR 1119.
60. Ibid.
61. Id., 74.
62. United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 307, 26 L. Ed., 2d 608.
63. Id., 652.
64. See Note 42.
65. Stroud v. United States, 251 U.S. 15, 18; 64 L. Ed. 103, 40 S. Ct. 50; Palko v. Connecticut,
302 U.S. 319, 326, 82 L. Ed., 288, 58 S. Ct. 149.
66. Id., 246.
67. 504 Fed. Rep. 2d 410.
68. 18 USCS Sec. 3731.

69. United States v. Jenkins, 420 U.S. 332.
70. Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140, 90 L. Ed. 2d 116, 106 S. Ct. 1745.
71. 73 Phil. 260 (1941).
72. 70 Phil. 528 (1940).
73. 94 Phil. 49 (1953).

74. No. L-29599, 30 January 1969.
75. No. L-31842, 30 April 1970, 32 SCRA 601.
76. 202 Phil. 83 (1982).
77. G.R. No. 54904, 29 January 1988, 157 SCRA 518.

78. 2 Phil. 247 (1903).
79. See Note 72.
80. 21 Phil. 67 (1911).

81. Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. 1, p. 438.
82. Id., 463-464.
83. Id., 503.
84. Id., 504.
85. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers, Rex Book Store,
1995, pp. 231-235.
86. Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 117, Sec 7; Paulin v. Gimenez, G.R. No. 103323, 21
January 1993, 217 SCRA 386; Comelec v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108120, 26 January
1994, 229 SCRA 501; People v. Court of Appeals and Maquiling, G.R. No. 18986, 21 June
1999.
87. G.R. No. 72670, 12 September 1986, 144 SCRA 43.
88. G.R. No. 54641, 28 November 1980, 102 SCRA 450.

89. See Note 87.
90. G.R. No. L-27935, 16 August 1985, 183 SCRA 166.
91. People v. Bocar, No. L-27935, 16 August 1985, 138 SCRA 166.
92. United States v. Sanges, 144 U.S. 310.
93. 355 U.S. 1842, L. Ed. 2d 199, 61 ALR 2d 1119.
94. Stern, Government Appeals of Sentences: A Constitutional Response to Arbitrary and

Unreasonable Sentences, 18 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 51, 69 [1980].
95. Paul Westen, The Three Faces of Double Jeopardy: Reflections on Government Appeals
of Criminal Sentences, 78 Mich. L. Rev. 1001, 1018, 1022 [1980].
96. Comments, Tulane Law Review, The Proposed Federal Criminal Code and The
Government's Right to Appeal Sentences: After The Supreme Court's Green Light — Dare
We Proceed? [Vol. 56, No. 2, Feb. 1982, at p. 702].
97. Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 36.

98. Notes on Double Jeopardy, Mich. L. Rev. Vol. 94:1346, quoting United States v. Jorn,
400 U.S. 486.
99. George C. Thomas III, An Elegant Theory of Double Jeopardy, U. Ill. L. Rev. 827, 840
(1988).
100. 488 U.S. 33, 42.

101. Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497.
102. No. L-37271, 25 June 1980, 98 SCRA 289, 298.
103. Petition, p. 3, quoting People v. Nano, G.R. No. 94639, 23 January 1992, 205 SCRA
155, 161.
104. 91 ALR 2d 1101. See State v. Todd, 224 NC 776, 32 SE 2d 313; State ex rel. Douglas v.
Stratiner, 119 Wash 667, 206 P 353.
105. United States v. Dickinson, 213 U.S. 92, 53 L. Ed. 711, 29 S. Ct. 485.
106. See, Note 101.
107. Ibid.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
1. People v. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239, September 2, 1994; People v. Yanson-Dumancas, G.R.
Nos. 133527-28, December 13, 1999.
2. 308 SCRA 687, June 21, 1999.
3. Naguiat v. NLRC, 269 SCRA 564, March 13, 1997; Camlian v. Comelec, 271 SCRA 757,
April 18, 1997; Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC, 276 SCRA 391, July 28, 1997; PMI
Colleges v. NLRC, 277 SCRA 462, August 15, 1997; Caltex Refinery Employees
Association v. Brillantes, 279 SCRA 218, September 16, 1997; Building Care Corp. v.
NLRC, 268 SCRA 666, February 26, 1997; Pure Blue Industries, Inc. v. NLRC, 271 SCRA
259, April 16, 1997; Tañada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997; National Federation of
Labor v. NLRC, 283 SCRA 275, December 15, 1997; Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc.
v. NLRC, 261 SCRA 757, September 16, 1996.
4. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 200, 209, June 4, 1996,
per Kapunan, J.; quoted in Santiago v. Guingona Jr., GR No. 134577, November 18, 1998.
See also Lalican v. Vergara, 276 SCRA 518, July 31, 1997; Republic v. Villarama Jr., 278
SCRA 736, September 5, 1997.
5. Teknika Skills and Trade Services, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 273 SCRA
10, June 2, 1997.
6. Medina v. City Sheriff, Manila, 276 SCRA 133, July 24, 1997; Jamer v. NLRC, 278 SCRA
632, September 5, 1997; Azores v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 252 SCRA 387,
January 25, 1996.
7. Chua v. Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 546, April 18, 1997; Santiago Land Development v.
Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 535, July 19, 1996.
8. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 200, June 4, 1996.
9. People v. Court of Appeals & Maquiling, supra, citing People v. Bocar, 138 SCRA 166,
1985; Gorion v. Regional Trial Court of Cebu, 213 SCRA 138, 1992; Guerrero v. Court of
Appeals, 257 SCRA 703, June 28, 1996; Paulin v. Gimenez, 217 SCRA 386, January 21,
1993.
10. People v. Court of Appeals & Maquiling, supra; Soriano v. Angeles GR No. 109920,
August 31, 2000.

11) People - v. - Velasco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11) People - v. - Velasco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11) People - v. - Velasco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 127444. September 13, 2000.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , petitioner, vs . HON. TIRSO D. C.

Solicitor General for petitioner.

As mandated by the Constitution, statutes and cognate jurisprudence, an acquittal is

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROPOSED RE-EVALUATION OF PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE ON

6. ID.; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; WRIT OF CERTIORARI; WHEN THE STATE IS

PANGANIBAN, J., Separate Opinion:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

Dear Colleagues . . . I wish to summarize our points. The amendment is

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

I explained my position on that Mr. Presiding Officer, when we considered the

Mr. Presiding O cer, I have expressed my position on this when we voted on

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

. . . That is the general rule and presupposes a valid judgment. As earlier

Philippine jurisprudence has been consistent in its application of the Double

WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the Petition. AaHTIE

4. 420 U.S. 332, 43 L. Ed. 2d 232, 95 S. Ct. 1013.

35. 163 U.S. 662-671.

44. A.D. 1255, Lib. Iv., Title xxi, I 13.

48. 355 U.S. 184, 2 L. Ed. 199, 78 S Ct 221, 61 ALR 2d 1119.

51. 302 U.S. 319, 326, 82 L. Ed. 288, 58 S. Ct. 149.

68. 18 USCS Sec. 3731.

73. 94 Phil. 49 (1953).

77. G.R. No. 54904, 29 January 1988, 157 SCRA 518.

80. 21 Phil. 67 (1911).

88. G.R. No. 54641, 28 November 1980, 102 SCRA 450.

94. Stern, Government Appeals of Sentences: A Constitutional Response to Arbitrary and

97. Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 36.

100. 488 U.S. 33, 42.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like