G.R. No. L-8634; October 22, 1913
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSEPH N. HEERY, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant, Joseph N. Heery, was convicted of assault attended with lesiones graves and sentenced to one year and three months of prision correccional. On first appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the criminal sentence but remanded the case to the trial court to complete the civil branch for the determination of damages suffered by the injured party, Alex Sternberg. Upon remand, the trial court took evidence on civil damages and rendered a new judgment that restated the criminal conviction and sentence and additionally ordered the defendant to indemnify Sternberg in the sum of P50,500. The defendant appealed from this new judgment, raising the question of double jeopardy.

ISSUE

Whether the remand of the case solely for the determination of civil damages and the subsequent judgment ordering indemnity constitute double jeopardy.

RULING

No. The plea of double jeopardy is without merit. The remand was strictly for the purpose of determining the civil liability arising from the crime, which is a separate matter from the criminal penalty. Under Section 107 of General Orders No. 58, the civil liability of the accused must be determined in the criminal action unless waived or reserved by the injured party. The procedure followed was in accordance with the Spanish Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that the penal action once started carries with it the civil action. The assessment of civil damages is not a modification or increase of the criminal penalty previously affirmed. The trial court’s act of “restating” the judgment of conviction, while unnecessary and ambiguous, did not amount to a reconsideration of guilt or a new sentence; it was merely a reiteration of the final criminal judgment that served as the basis for civil liability. The only new element added was the civil indemnity, which was within the court’s authority to impose following the Supreme Court’s mandate. Therefore, the defendant was not placed in double jeopardy.