Dear PAO,

I have a friend who was charged with two counts of rape. He was acquitted of the first charge, but was convicted of the second. He appealed the case, but to our surprise, the High Court found him guilty of two counts of rape. Don’t we have a law which prohibits double jeopardy?

Jadg

Dear Jadg,

Article III, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution provides a constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy, but this principle may not be applicable in the case you have stated.

In People of the Philippines v. Villanueva, et al., GR 211082, Dec. 17, 2017, Ponente: Associate Justice Noel Tijam, the Supreme Court explained that:

“While the Court affirms the RTC’s and the CA’s finding that accused-appellant is guilty of rape, we note that accused-appellant was in fact charged under three separate Informations for three counts of rape, specifically stating therein that the accused-appellant, together with his co-accused, conspired, confederated and helped each other in committing the crime. While it is true that the RTC and the CA only found accused-appellant guilty of one count of rape, when he appealed from the decision of the RTC and later on, the CA, he waived the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and threw the whole case open to the review of the appellate court, which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable to the accused-appellant.” (Emphasis supplied)

Furthermore, in People of the Philippines v. XXX262846, GR 262846, Ponente: Associate Justice Antonio Kho, Jr., the high court explained the nature of the finality of acquittal rule, to wit:

“Significantly, the finality of acquittal rule is a proscription against the State, and does not apply when it is the accused who appeals their conviction. As stated earlier, an appeal in a criminal case throws the entire case open for the appellate court’s review. The appellate court is then called on to render such judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable to the accused-appellant. Thus, in Mirandilla, the Court modified the CA decision finding the accused in that case guilty of several counts of rape, kidnapping with rape, and rape by sexual assault, and instead found the accused guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping and illegal detention with rape. The crime as modified by the Court merited the death penalty, which was reduced to reclusion perpetua without the possibility of parole.” (Emphasis supplied)

Taken together, since your friend appealed his conviction, he is considered to have waived his right against double jeopardy. Stated differently, availing of appellate remedies throws the entire case open for review. In conducting such review, the appellate court may render a decision that may either be favorable or prejudicial to your friend’s cause depending on its evaluation of the facts and evidence on record, as well as existing laws and jurisprudence.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

We appreciate your trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected].