G.R. No. L-2708 and L-3355-60 January 30, 1953
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Segundo M. Acierto, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Prior to August 23, 1947, Segundo M. Acierto was employed by the United States Army as a court martial reporter on a salary basis. On that date, he was dropped from the strength report and became a reporter on a piece-work arrangement, being paid only for work actually performed. In 1948, he was accused of making false claims and receiving compensation for services not rendered. On March 20, 1948, he was arrested by United States Military authorities, detained, and tried before a general court martial for violation of the 94th Article of War. At that trial, he interposed a special plea to the court martial’s jurisdiction, which was overruled. After a trial on a plea of not guilty, he was found guilty on April 8, 1948, and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for sixty months. However, on June 18, 1948, the Commanding General, as reviewing authority, disapproved the verdict and sentence solely on the ground that the accused was not subject to military law, without prejudice to his trial before a proper tribunal. Consequently, on June 19, 1948, he was turned over to the City Attorney of Quezon City. Seven cases were filed in the Court of First Instance: one for falsification of a private document (where he pleaded not guilty) and six for estafa (where he pleaded guilty). He was convicted in all cases. On appeal, the cases were consolidated, raising the issues of former jeopardy, want of jurisdiction of the court a quo, and sufficiency of the evidence.

ISSUE

1. Whether the court martial had jurisdiction over Segundo M. Acierto and the offenses, thereby barring the subsequent prosecution in Philippine courts on grounds of double jeopardy.
2. Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the cases.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict for falsification of a private document.

RULING

1. The court martial did not have jurisdiction over Segundo M. Acierto. At the time of the offenses, he was a piece-worker, not a regular employee “serving with” the United States Army. He worked as he pleased, was not under daily control or discipline, was not required to report regularly, and was paid from a different fund for work accomplished. Under the Bases Agreement, the United States had jurisdiction over offenses committed within a base only if the offender was a member of the armed forces or, under paragraph (a) of Article XIII, if the offender was not a Philippine citizen or the offense was not against the security of the Philippines. The appellant, as a civilian piece-worker, was not within the classes specified for military jurisdiction. Furthermore, the appellant is estopped from claiming the court martial had jurisdiction after having successfully pleaded lack of jurisdiction before that same body. His inconsistent positions—first challenging the court martial’s jurisdiction and then asserting it to claim double jeopardy—constitute trifling with the courts and are contrary to principles of good faith.
2. Since the court martial lacked jurisdiction, jeopardy did not attach to its proceedings. Even if the court martial had jurisdiction, the disapproval of the verdict and sentence based on the appellant’s own plea of lack of jurisdiction prevents the plea of double jeopardy from being a bar to a second trial. Therefore, the Court of First Instance properly exercised jurisdiction over the cases.
3. The evidence was sufficient to convict for falsification of a private document. The lower court found that on March 11, 1948, the defendant submitted a voucher falsely claiming entitlement to $100.46 from the United States Army for services not rendered and forged the signature of Captain Eaton J. Bowers. The defendant did not introduce any evidence to disprove these findings. The judgment of conviction was affirmed, with modification regarding the computation of the penalty and deduction for preventive imprisonment.