GR 136733; (December, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 136733-35 December 13, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ELADIO VIERNES y ILDEFONSO, appellant.
FACTS
Eladio Viernes was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City for two counts of rape and one count of attempted rape against Catherine Linatoc, a minor. The trial court’s original Decision, dated April 6, 1998, sentenced him to two penalties of reclusion perpetua for the consummated rapes and an indeterminate penalty for the attempted rape. Subsequently, the trial court issued an Order dated May 21, 1998, which modified the penalties. This Order increased the penalties for the two rape convictions from reclusion perpetua to death, citing the correct application of Republic Act No. 7659 (the Death Penalty Law). The trial court acted on its own initiative, without a motion from the prosecution, in issuing this amendatory order that imposed a more severe punishment.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed a reversible error in issuing the May 21, 1998 Order that modified its original judgment by imposing the death penalty upon the appellant.
RULING
Yes, the trial court committed a grave error. The Supreme Court ruled that the amendatory Order is void. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principle of finality of judgments and the rule against double jeopardy. Under Section 7, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, a judgment of conviction in a criminal case may be modified or set aside only before it becomes final, and such modification can only be upon motion of the accused for a lesser penalty. The prosecution is expressly prohibited from appealing or seeking a modification for the purpose of increasing the penalty. The trial court’s act of sua sponte increasing the penalty from reclusion perpetua to death violated this rule. It constituted an amendment substantial and prejudicial to the accused, as it imposed a more severe punishment after a judgment of conviction had been rendered. This encroachment is a violation of the right against double jeopardy, as it placed the accused twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Consequently, the Supreme Court declared the May 21, 1998 Order null and void and reinstated the penalties as originally imposed in the April 6, 1998 Decision. The Court affirmed the convictions but imposed the original, lesser penalties.