G.R. No. 143547 ; June 26, 2002
JOEY POTOT y SURIO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and LOLITO DAPULAG, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Joey Potot was charged with homicide for stabbing Rodolfo Dapulag. Upon arraignment, assisted by counsel, Potot pleaded guilty. The trial court, after ensuring he understood the consequences, rendered a decision convicting him of homicide, appreciating the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender, and imposing an indeterminate sentence. Potot subsequently filed a manifestation stating he would not appeal and requested immediate service of his sentence.
Thereafter, the private complainant, the victim’s wife, filed a motion for reconsideration/retrial with the conformity of the public prosecutor. She alleged that eyewitness affidavits revealed two other individuals aided Potot in the killing, information purportedly withheld earlier. She prayed for the decision to be set aside and for the case to be remanded to the prosecutor for re-evaluation and the filing of a new charge. The trial court granted the motion, set aside its decision as proceeding from a “rigged, hence, sham hearing,” and ordered the records remanded to the Provincial Prosecutor.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in setting aside its final judgment of conviction and ordering a remand for re-evaluation, thereby violating the petitioner’s right against double jeopardy.

RULING

Yes. The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. A judgment of conviction based on a valid plea of guilty becomes final if not appealed. Here, the accused formally waived his right to appeal, rendering the decision final and executory. The trial court lost jurisdiction to alter or set aside the judgment. The private complainant’s remedy was to appeal the civil aspect, not to seek a retrial or a re-evaluation of the criminal charge.
The court’s action also violated the constitutional right against double jeopardy. The requisites for double jeopardy are present: (1) a valid information for homicide, (2) a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) the accused pleaded to the charge, and (4) he was convicted. The subsequent order to remand the case for the filing of a new charge based on the same act constitutes a second prosecution for the same offense. The alleged discovery of new evidence or participation of other accused does not justify reopening the case against Potot, as he had already been convicted by final judgment. The proper course for the prosecution regarding the newly implicated individuals is to file a separate action.