August 31, 1966
FACTS:
Aurelio Balisacan stabbed Leonicio Bulaoat, which resulted in the latter's death. Aurelio was subsequently charged with homicide before the trial court of Ilocos Norte.
During the arraignment, Aurelio pleaded guilty. He was then allowed to present evidence to prove mitigating circumstances. During his testimony, Aurelio said he stabbed Leonicio in self-defense because the latter was strangling him.
On the basis of the above testimony, the trial court acquitted Aurelio.
An appeal was filed before the Court of Appeals, but the CA forwarded the same to the Supreme Court, noting that said appeal involved questions purely of law.
ISSUE:
Whether an appeal challenging the acquittal of Aurelio constitutes double jeopardy. -- NO.
HELD:
- While it is true that Aurelio had first entered a plea of guilty, his subsequent testimony that he acted in complete self-defense had the effect of vacating said plea. Therefore, the trial court should have required him to plead anew on the charge, or at least direct that a new plea of not guilty be entered for him.The fact that this was not done meant there was no standing plea at the time Aurelio was acquitted by the trial court, and as such, there could be no double jeopardy with respect to the appeal filed.
- The trial court also decided the case upon the merits without giving the prosecution any opportunity to present its evidence or even to rebut the testimony of Aurelio. In doing so, the trial court clearly acted without due process of law. And for lack of this fundamental prerequisite, the trial court's action was null and void. The acquittal, therefore, being a nullity for want of due process, was no acquittal at all, and thus can not constitute a proper basis for a claim of double jeopardy.
The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings under another judge for plea by the defendant, trial with presentation of evidence for the prosecution and the defense, and judgment thereafter.