While an acquittal in a criminal case is generally final, it can be set aside for further proceedings and the doctrine of double jeopardy does not apply if the State is deprived of due process in the prosecution of the offense, the Supreme Court (SC) said.
In a recent decision, the SC reiterated that exceptions apply when the prosecution is not given the opportunity to present evidence, the trial is a sham, or there is a mistrial.
Double jeopardy under Section 21 of Article III on Bill of Rights in the Constitution states: “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.”
The SC, in a decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, said the constitutional provision prevents individuals from being subjected to harassment or oppression through the abuse of criminal proceedings.
In a summary of the decision, the SC’s Office of the Spokesperson said the SC set aside the acquittal of Manuel T. Ubarra Jr., then vice president of CJH Development Corporation (CJH) and remanded the case to the regional trial court (RTC) for further proceedings.
It said that Ubarra accused lawyer Arnel Paciano D. Casanova, then chief executive officer of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA), of failing to timely respond to CJH’s letters.
Ubarra charged Casanova with violations of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; RA 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees; and Presidential Decree No. 807, the Civil Service Decree.
In his defense, Casanova countered that the letters were not addressed to him but to then BCDA president Narciso L. Abaya who had already responded.
Casanova then filed a perjury case against Ubarra.
The summary stated that the metropolitan trial court (MeTC) found Ubarra guilty of perjury. The majority of the prosecution’s evidence was Casanova’s testimony through his judicial affidavit, it also stated.
However, the regional trial court (RTC) acquitted Ubarra citing the absence of Casanova’s judicial affidavit in the case records transmitted to it.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). It pointed out that the RTC ignored key evidence and failed to give the prosecution a chance to address the missing affidavit.
The CA granted the OSG’s appeal. Ubarra then elevated the case to the SC citing the doctrine of double jeopardy.
The SC agreed with the CA’s ruling that the RTC prematurely acquitted Ubarra without a full review of the evidence.
It pointed out that the RTC failed to allow the prosecution to explain or correct the missing affidavit, despite it being filed and admitted by the MeTC.
The RTC’s lapse violated the State’s right to due process, rendering the judgment of acquittal invalid, it said.
It reminded trial courts that they must ensure a fair trial for both the accused and the prosecution.
The SC declared: “Our Constitution protects the right to due process of both the State and the accused in criminal cases. Thus, the guarantee against double jeopardy does not preclude the Court from declaring a judgment of acquittal as void when it has been rendered in violation of the State’s right to be heard and prosecute its case.”