We take this opportunity to correct a capricious, patent, and
abusive judgment by reversing and setting aside the Decision.
Judge Soluren retired compulsorily in 2012. Had she still been in
the service, some members of this Court would have been
minded to refer this matter to the Office of the Court
Administrator for investigation into and evaluation of the
question of whether the above acts call for the application of
administrative sanctions.
Double jeopardy is not triggered
when the order of acquittal is void.
Grave abuse of discretion amounts to lack of jurisdiction, and
lack of jurisdiction prevents double jeopardy from attaching.[53]
In People v. Hernandez,[54] this Court explained that "an acquittal
rendered in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction does not really 'acquit' and therefore does
not terminate the case as there can be no double jeopardy
based on a void indictment."
Considering that Judge Soluren's order of acquittal was void
from the very beginning, it necessarily follows that the CA ruling
dismissing the Petition for Certiorari must likewise be reversed
and set aside.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing Petition is GRANTED. The assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 97629 dated
22 March 2010 and Resolution dated 30 July 2010
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Decision of Branch 40 of the Regional Trial Court of Palayan
City, Nueva Ecija dated 31 October 2006 and Order dated 18
April 2006, rendered by public respondent Judge Corazon D.
Soluren acquitting respondent Pepito Gonzales, are
likewise REVERSED and SET ASIDE for having been issued with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. The Decision dated 22 December 2005 rendered by
Judge Erlinda P. Buted is REINSTATED.
The Court of Appeals is hereby ordered to conduct the
mandatory and automatic review of the Decision dated 22
December 2005 pursuant to Sections 3 and 10, Rule 122 of the
Rules of Court. Let the entire records of Criminal Case No. 1066-
P entitled People of the Philippines v. Pepito Gonzales be
immediately TRANSMITTED to the Court of Appeals.
The bail granted to respondent Pepito Gonzales is CANCELLED.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Director of the
National Bureau of Investigation and the Director-General of the
Philippine National Police. The National Bureau of Investigation
and the Philippine National Police are hereby DIRECTED to
cause the IMMEDIATE ARREST and DETENTION of respondent
Pepito Gonzales.
SO ORDERED.
Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ.,
concur.
Caguioa, J., see concurring opinion.
[1]
Dated 22 March 2010, rollo, p. 34-44; penned by Associate
Justice Florito S. Macalino and concurred in by Associate
Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Ramon M. Bato, Jr.
[2]
Dated 30 July 2010; id. at 45.
[3]
Dated 31 October 2006, id. at 209-238.
[4]
Dated 22 December 2005; id. at 157-198.
[5]
Id. at 12.
[6]
Id. at 48.
[7]
Id. at 53.
[8]
Id. at 61.
[9]
Id. at 66.
[10]
Dated 8 December 1998; id. at 71.
[11]
On 25 February 1999; id. at 73.
[12]
Id. at 95
[13]
Id. at 102.
[14]
Id. at 107.
[15]
Id. at 105.
[16]
Id. at 111.
[17]
In an Order dated 5 October 2004; id. at 135
[18]
Id. at 136.
[19]
Id. at 138.
[20]
In an Order dated 17 May 2005; id. at 143.
[21]
Id. at 148-150. "Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits for the
Accused."
[22]
Id. at 151-152.
[23]
Id. at 318.
[24]
Id. at 153.
[25]
Id. at 154.
[26]
Id.
[27]
Id. at 155.
[28]
Id. at 319.
[29]
Id.
[30]
Id. at 156.
[31]
Id. at 197.
[32]
Rule 120, Sec. 6, par. 4 - In case the accused fails to appear at
the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment despite notice,
the promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in
the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last
known address or through his counsel.
[33]
Rollo, p. 156.
[34]
Id. at 199.
[35]
Id. at 204.
[36]
Id. at 209-238.
[37]
Id. at 238.
[38]
Id. 260-278.
[39]
Id. at 330-333.
[40]
Id. at 331.
[41]
See Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz, 385 Phil. 208-224
(2000); People v. Calo, Jr., 264 Phil. 1007-1015 (1990).
[42]
140 Phil. 81-94 (1969).
[43]
G.R. No. 188191, 12 March 2014, 718 SCRA 698.
[44]
Rollo, pp. 151-152.
[45]
Manaya v. Alabang Country Club, Inc., 552 Phil. 226 (2007).
[46]
See Chua v. Court of Appeals, 549 Phil. 494-504 (2007).
[47]
Id.
[48]
G.R. No. 179631, 12 March 2013, 693 SCRA 167.
[49]
505 Phil. 339 (2005).
[50]
Rollo, p. 156.
[51]
Id. at 199.
[52]
Id. at 156.
[53]
Villareal v. People, 680 Phil. 527 (2012) citing People v.
Hernandez, 531 Phil. 289 (2006).
[54]
Supra note 53.