G.R. No. L-26376 - AUGUST 1966 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-26376August 31, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Aurelio Balisacan G.R. Nos. L-25994 and 26004 and 26046August 31, 1966 Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. vs. Public Service Commission G.R. No. L-23635August 31, 1966 Teodoro M. Castro vs. Rufino G. Hechanova, et al. G.R. No. L-21969August 31, 1966 Industrial Textile Manufacturing Company of the Phil. vs. Sofia Reyes Florzo, et al. G.R. No. L-21930August 31, 1966 Agapita Pajarillo, et al vs. Social Security System G.R. Nos. L-21703-04August 31, 1966 Mateo H. Reyes, et al vs. Mateo Raval Reyes G.R. No. L-21512August 31, 1966 Prospero Sabido, et al vs. Carlos Custodio, et al. G.R. No. L-21442August 31, 1966 Salud S. Papa vs. Gervacio S. Banaag G.R. No. L-21287August 31, 1966 In re: Antonio Enrile Inton. Antonio Enrile Inton vs. Julian Villanueva Matute G.R. No. L-21223August 31, 1966 Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. vs. Social Security System G.R. No. L-21055August 31, 1966 Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-20821August 31, 1966 Testate Estate of Jose Castillo. Beatriz M. vda. de Castillo vs. Blanca Castillo, et al. G.R. No. L-20809August 31, 1966 In re: Lim Eng Yu. Lim Eng Yu vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19833August 31, 1966 In re: Cosme Go Tian An. Cosme Go Tian An vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-18961August 31, 1966 Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. vs. Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-18726August 31, 1966 Thomas M. Gonzales vs. Demetrio B. Encarnacion, et al. G.R. No. L-16759August 31, 1966 Rafael Morales vs. Collector of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-5796August 29, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo Capadocia, et al. G.R. No. L-24439August 29, 1966 Governor Hadji Arsad Sali vs. Benjamin Abubakar, et al. G.R. No. L-21796August 29, 1966 National Development Company vs.Workmen's Compensation Commission , et al. G.R. No. L-21376August 29, 1966 Luz M. Gigare vs. Commissioner of Customs G.R. No. L-21230August 29, 1966 Gold Star Mining Co., Inc. vs. Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al. G.R. No. L-18454August 29, 1966 Mariano Cabilao, et al vs. Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, et al. G.R. No. L-25635August 23, 1966 Jose C. Zulueta, et al vs. Cecilia Muñoz, et al. G.R. No. L-23286August 23, 1966 Querubin Perfecto vs. Alfredo Sapico, et al. G.R. No. L-21768August 23, 1966 Bachrach Transportation Co., Inc., et al vs. Rural Transit Employees Association, et al. G.R. No. L-20020August 23, 1966 Tan Te Buntiong vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19832August 23, 1966 Bernardo Yap. Bernardo Yap vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-17243August 23, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Ignacio Villalba G.R. No. L-11077August 23, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Li Bun Juan, et al. G.R. No. L-25660August 12, 1966 Leopoldo Vencilao, et al vs. Teodoro Vaño, et al. G.R. No. L-24672August 12, 1966 Republic of the Philippines vs. Modesto R. Ramolete, et al. G.R. No. L-19520August 12, 1966 Felipe Nacorda, et al vs. Nicasio Yatco, et al. G.R. No. L-16488August 12, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Juan Raquinio G.R. No. L-13869August 10, 1966 In re: Ernesto Ting. Ernesto Ting vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-22534August 9, 1966 Insurance Company of North America vs. MAritime Company of the Phil., et al. G.R. No. L-20938August 9, 1966 New Hasmpshire Fire Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-14044August 5, 1966 People of the Philippines vs. Benedicto Balili, et al. G.R. No. L-21885August 3, 1966 Government of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Abin, et al. G.R. No. L-19376August 3, 1966 Te Atta Uy vda. de Cajucom vs. Manila Remnant Co. Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-17838August 3, 1966 Nasipit Labor Union vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-15905August 3, 1966 Nicanor T. Jimenez, et al vs. Bartolome Cabangbang The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Aurelio Balisacan Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. vs. Public Service Commission Teodoro M. Castro vs. Rufino G. Hechanova, et al. Industrial Textile Manufacturing Company of the Phil. vs. Sofia Reyes Florzo, et al. Agapita Pajarillo, et al vs. Social Security System Mateo H. Reyes, et al vs. Mateo Raval Reyes Prospero Sabido, et al vs. Carlos Custodio, et al. Salud S. Papa vs. Gervacio S. Banaag In re: Antonio Enrile Inton. Antonio Enrile Inton vs. Julian Villanueva Matute Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. vs. Social Security System Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Testate Estate of Jose Castillo. Beatriz M. vda. de Castillo vs. Blanca Castillo, et al. In re: Lim Eng Yu. Lim Eng Yu vs. Republic of the Philippines In re: Cosme Go Tian An. Cosme Go Tian An vs. Republic of the Philippines Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. vs. Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc. Thomas M. Gonzales vs. Demetrio B. Encarnacion, et al. Rafael Morales vs. Collector of Internal Revenue People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo Capadocia, et al. Governor Hadji Arsad Sali vs. Benjamin Abubakar, et al. National Development Company vs.Workmen's Compensation Commission , et al. Luz M. Gigare vs. Commissioner of Customs Gold Star Mining Co., Inc. vs. Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al. Mariano Cabilao, et al vs. Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, et al. Jose C. Zulueta, et al vs. Cecilia Muñoz, et al. Querubin Perfecto vs. Alfredo Sapico, et al. Bachrach Transportation Co., Inc., et al vs. Rural Transit Employees Association, et al. Tan Te Buntiong vs. Republic of the Philippines Bernardo Yap. Bernardo Yap vs. Republic of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Ignacio Villalba People of the Philippines vs. Li Bun Juan, et al. Leopoldo Vencilao, et al vs. Teodoro Vaño, et al. Republic of the Philippines vs. Modesto R. Ramolete, et al. Felipe Nacorda, et al vs. Nicasio Yatco, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Juan Raquinio In re: Ernesto Ting. Ernesto Ting vs. Republic of the Philippines Insurance Company of North America vs. MAritime Company of the Phil., et al. New Hasmpshire Fire Insurance Co. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Benedicto Balili, et al. Government of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Abin, et al. Te Atta Uy vda. de Cajucom vs. Manila Remnant Co. Inc., et al. Nasipit Labor Union vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Nicanor T. Jimenez, et al vs. Bartolome Cabangbang The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-26376 August 31, 1966
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff and appellant,
vs.
AURELIO BALISACAN,defendant and appellee.
Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General I. C. Borromeo and T. M. Dilig for plaintiff and appellant.
Rolando de la Cuesta for defendant and appellee.
BENGZON, J.P.,J.:
This is an appeal by the prosecution from a decision of acquittal.
On February 1, 1965, Aurelio Balisacan was charged with homicide in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. The information alleged:
That on or about December 3, 1964, in the Municipality of Nueva Era, province of Ilocos Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one, Leonicio Bulaoat, inflicting upon the latter wounds that immediately caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
To this charge the accused, upon being arraigned, entered a plea of guilty. In doing so, he was assisted by counsel. At hisde oficiocounsel's petition, however, he was allowed to present evidence to prove mitigating circumstances. Thereupon the accused testified to the effect that he stabbed the deceased in self-defense because the latter was strangling him. And he further stated that after the incident he surrendered himself voluntarily to the police authorities.
Subsequently, on March 6, 1965, on the basis of the above-mentioned testimony of the accused, the courta quorendered a decision acquitting the accused. As stated, the prosecution appealed therefrom.
This appeal was first taken to the Court of Appeals. Appellant filed its brief on September 9, 1965. No appellee's brief was filed. After being submitted for decision without appellee's brief, the appeal was certified to Us by the Court of Appeals on July 14, 1966, as involving questions purely of law (Sec. 17, Republic Act 296). And on August 5, 1966, We ordered it docketed herein.1äwphï1.ñët
The sole assignment of error is:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED DESPITE THE LATTER'S PLEA OF GUILTY WHEN ARRAIGNED.
Appellant's contention is meritorious. A plea of guilty is an unconditional admission of guilt with respect to the offense charged. It forecloses the right to defend oneself from said charge and leaves the court with no alternative but to impose the penalty fixed by law under the circumstances. (People v. Ng Pek, 81 Phil. 563). In this case, the defendant was only allowed to testify in order to establish mitigating circumstances, for the purposes of fixing the penalty. Said testimony, therefore, could not be taken as a trial on the merits, to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
In view of the assertion of self-defense in the testimony of the accused, the proper course should have been for the courta quoto take defendant's plea anew and then proceed with the trial of the case,in the order set forthin Section 3 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court:
SEC. 3.Order of trial. — The plea of not guilty having been entered, the trial must proceed in the following order:
(a) The fiscal, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, must offer evidence in support of the charges.
(b) The defendant or his attorney may offer evidence in support of the defense.
(c) The parties may then respectively offer rebutting evidence only, unless the court, in furtherance of justice, permit them to offer new additional evidence bearing upon the main issue in question.
(d) When the introduction of evidence shall have been concluded, unless the case is submitted to the court without argument, the fiscal must open the argument, the attorney for the defense must follow, and the fiscal may conclude the same. The argument by either attorney may be oral or written, or partly written, but only the written arguments, or such portions of the same as may be in writing, shall be preserved in the record of the case.
In deciding the case upon the merits without the requisite trial, the courta quonot only erred in procedure but deprived the prosecution of its day in court and right to be heard.
This Court now turns to Section 2, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, which provides that: "The People of the Philippines can not appeal if the defendant would be placed thereby in double jeopardy." The present state of jurisprudence in this regard is that the above provision applies even if the accused fails to file a brief and raise the question of double jeopardy (People v. Ferrer, L-9072, October 23, 1956; People v. Bao, L-12102, September 29, 1959; People v. De Golez, L-14160, June 30, 1960).
The next issue, therefore, is whether this appeal placed the accused in double jeopardy. It is settled that the existence of a plea is an essential requisite to double jeopardy (People v. Ylagan, 58 Phil. 851; People v. Quimsing, L-19860, December 23, 1964). In the present case, it is true, the accused had first entered a plea of guilty. Subsequently, however, he testified, in the course of being allowed to prove mitigating circumstances, that he acted in complete self-defense. Said testimony, therefore — as the courta quorecognized in its decision — had the effect of vacating his plea of guilty and the courta quoshould have required him to plead a new on the charge, or at least direct that a new plea of not guilty be entered for him. This was not done. It follows that in effect there having been no standing plea at the time the courta quorendered its judgment of acquittal, there can be no double jeopardy with respect to the appeal herein.1
Furthermore, as afore-stated, the courta quodecided the case upon the merits without giving the prosecution any opportunity to present its evidence or even to rebut the testimony of the defendant. In doing so, it clearly acted without due process of law. And for lack of this fundamental prerequisite, its action is perforce null and void. The acquittal, therefore, being a nullity for want of due process, is no acquittal at all, and thus can not constitute a proper basis for a claim of former jeopardy (People v. Cabero, 61 Phil. 121; 21 Am. Jur. 2d. 235; McCleary v. Hudspeth 124 Fed. 2d. 445).
It should be noted that in rendering the judgment of acquittal, the trial judge below already gave credence to the testimony of the accused. In fairness to the prosecution, without in any way doubting the integrity of said trial judge, We deem it proper to remand this case to the courta quofor further proceedings under another judge of the same court, in one of the two other branches of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte sitting at Laoag.
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby set aside and this case is remanded to the courta quofor further proceedings under another judge of said court, that is, for plea by the defendant, trial with presentation of evidence for the prosecution and the defense, and judgment thereafter, No costs. So ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.
Regala and Makalintal, JJ., took no part.
Footnotes
1Sec. 9, Rule 117, Rules of Court.