G.R. No. L-30355. May 31, 1978.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellants, vs. HON. UNION KAYANAN and HON. ENRIQUE AGANA, Judges of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, and PELAGIO ORGANO, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

This case originated from Criminal Case No. 1692-G for Murder. The prosecution had already rested its case, and the defense had begun presenting evidence before Branch III of the Court of First Instance of Quezon in Gumaca. The trial was postponed indefinitely due to the presiding judge’s retirement. On February 13, 1968, without any prior notice to the designated prosecutors handling the case, the accused, Pelagio Organo, appeared before Branch IV in Lucena, presided by respondent Judge Union Kayanan. During this uncalendared proceeding, a different assistant fiscal, unfamiliar with the case, was present. The accused, with the assistance of a court-appointed counsel for arraignment only, was allowed to change his plea to guilty for the lesser offense of homicide. He also invoked the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and incomplete self-defense without presenting any evidence. Judge Kayanan rendered a decision convicting Organo of homicide, crediting these mitigating circumstances.
The designated State Prosecutor filed an urgent motion for reconsideration, arguing the proceedings were irregular and conducted without notice. Respondent Judge Enrique Agana denied the motion, ruling that granting it would place the accused in double jeopardy. The People, through the Solicitor General, filed this petition for certiorari to annul the decision and the order denying reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the proceedings before Judge Kayanan were valid, and consequently, whether a plea of double jeopardy correctly bars the continuation of the murder trial.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, declaring the proceedings null and void. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental irregularity and invalidity of the proceedings, which precludes the attachment of jeopardy. A valid plea of guilty to a lesser offense requires the consent of the prosecution, which was absent here as the duly designated prosecutors were not notified. The proceedings were conducted surreptitiously, without the case being calendared and without the prosecution’s knowledge, violating basic procedural norms. Furthermore, the accused was improperly credited with mitigating circumstances. A plea of guilty to a lesser offense after the prosecution has rested cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance. The circumstances of voluntary surrender and incomplete self-defense were accepted without any proof being offered, which is a clear legal error. Since the entire proceeding was manifestly illegal and void from its inception, jeopardy did not attach. Judge Agana’s order was reversed for erroneously applying the double jeopardy principle to a void judgment. The case was remanded to the trial court for continuation of the trial. The Court strongly admonished against such procedural irregularities that compromise the public interest in the proper administration of justice.