GR 193150 So; (January, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 193150 , January 23, 2017
Decision, Sereno, [CJ]; Concurring Opinion, Caguioa, [J]
FACTS
The respondent was convicted by Judge Buted of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for a crime punishable by death. The judgment was promulgated in absentia, with the respondent’s counsel present, in accordance with the Rules of Court. Following the conviction, the case records were immediately transmitted to the Court of Appeals for automatic review, as required by law for death penalty cases. Subsequently, the respondent’s counsel filed an Omnibus Motion before the RTC, which was then presided over by a new judge, Judge Soluren. Judge Soluren granted the motion, set aside the prior conviction, and issued an order acquitting the respondent.
ISSUE
Whether the rule on double jeopardy bars the reinstatement of the respondent’s conviction after Judge Soluren’s order of acquittal.
RULING
No, double jeopardy does not attach. Justice Caguioa, in his concurring opinion, emphasizes that for double jeopardy to apply, the prior judgment of conviction or acquittal must be valid and rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. In this case, Judge Soluren’s order of acquittal was void from its inception. The RTC, under Judge Soluren, had already lost jurisdiction over the case the moment the records were transmitted to the appellate court for automatic review. By disregarding a validly promulgated decision and issuing a contrary order without jurisdiction, Judge Soluren committed a patently erroneous act amounting to a whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment. Consequently, the fourth element required for double jeopardy—a valid prior conviction, acquittal, or dismissal—is absent. The acquittal order being a legal nullity, the rule on double jeopardy finds no application, allowing for the reinstatement of the original valid conviction. The circumstances are deemed exceptional, akin to the precedent in Villareal v. People, where the Court allowed a subsequent prosecution due to a prior void judgment, underscoring that double jeopardy cannot be invoked to shield a void order.