One of the rights of an accused In criminal cases is the right against double jeopardy as found in Section 21, Article III of our Constitution, which provides that “no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.”
It means that once the accused is acquitted or the criminal case against him is dismissed, the government cannot appeal or question it anymore because to do so will place him in double jeopardy. No one can be put in danger [jeopardy] of being prosecuted more than once. The constitutional prohibition against ‘double jeopardy’ was designed to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged crime.
The rule is that a judgment acquitting the accused is final, meaning it cannot be appealed. Once the court promulgated the judgment of acquittal or dismissal, it is immediately executory and the State cannot seek its review without putting the accused in double jeopardy. Such acquittal is final and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy whether it happens at the trial court or on appeal.
The principle of double jeopardy was applied in People v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 223099 dated 11th January 2018. In this case, Alejandro was charged with two counts of rape of a 12-year old. A trial ensued after he entered a not-guilty plea during the arraignment. At the trial, the minor testified that accused followed her, grabbed her, brought her to the back of a school and raped her.
The second rape happened two months later when accused went to her house and raped her. In both instances, accused threatened to kill her if she tells anybody. A doctor also testified that there was positive sexual intercourse. The accused waived his right to present evidence and the case was thus submitted for decision.
On July 26, 2011, the Regional Trial Court promulgated a Decision acquitting the accused on the ground that the complainant did not testify. On the same day, it recalled the decision upon manifestation of the prosecutor that the complainant did testify, but the Order [proof that the rape victim testified] was mistakenly mixed in the record of another case involving the same accused but different complainant.
To rectify the error and prevent miscarriage of justice, the Decision of acquittal is recalled and set aside. Accused questioned the process since the judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and can neither be withdrawn nor modified because to do so would place him in double jeopardy.
As the RTC denied his motion for reconsideration, he went to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed his appeal.
The case reached the Supreme Court and ruled: In our jurisdiction, We adhere to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. The 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of the accused against double jeopardy. What is peculiar in this case is that a judgment of acquittal was rendered based on the mistaken notion that complainant did not testify; allegedly because of the mix-up of orders with a different case involving the same accused. This, however, does not change the fact that a judgment of acquittal had already been promulgated. Indeed, a judgment of acquittal is final, unappealable, and immediately executory upon its promulgation.”
The rule on double jeopardy, is not without exceptions, which are: [1] deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a mistrial, or [2] grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances. We find that these exceptions do not exist in this case. Here, there was no deprivation of due process or mistrial because the records show that the prosecution was able to present their case and their witnesses. A mere manifestation filed by the prosecutor will not suffice. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules should have been filed. In criminal cases, a judgment of acquittal is immediately final upon its promulgation. It cannot be corrected or amended since to do so will violate the constitutional right against double jeopardy. Thus, the RTC and CA decisions were reversed and accused was set free.
