GR L 21382; (July, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21382 July 2, 1966
JOSE ARENAJO, petitioner, vs. HON. JULIAN E. LUSTRE, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
A criminal complaint for theft was filed against petitioner Jose Arenajo in the Justice of the Peace Court of Camiling, Tarlac. After trial, the court rendered a decision acquitting Arenajo of the crime of theft. However, the same decision ordered the return of the stolen wrist watch to the complainant, Eustacio Damian, based on a finding that Damian was the owner and had lost the watch, and that Arenajo had acquired it by barter from a third person without criminal intent. Arenajo filed a notice of appeal to the Court of First Instance, expressly stating that the appeal was limited “only as with regards the civil nature or aspect of this case, in awarding the subject wrist watch to the complainant.” The respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance issued an order granting a motion to consider the criminal complaint as refiled before his court and ordered the case to be tried anew in all respects, docketing it as a new criminal case. Arenajo filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that a retrial on the criminal aspect would place him in double jeopardy since he had already been acquitted, and that his appeal was limited to the civil aspect. The motion was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering a trial de novo of the criminal case, including its criminal aspect, despite the petitioner’s acquittal by the Justice of the Peace Court and his appeal being expressly limited to the civil aspect of the case.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that a judgment of acquittal rendered by the Justice of the Peace Court is final and immediately effective. The provisions of the Rules of Court regarding trial de novo on appeal to the Court of First Instance apply only to appealed judgments of conviction, not to judgments of acquittal. Since Arenajo had already been acquitted and his appeal was explicitly confined to the civil aspect of the case (the award of the wrist watch to the complainant), it was error for the respondent Judge to order a reopening or retrial of the criminal aspect. Doing so would place the accused in double jeopardy for the same offense. The preliminary injunction was made permanent.