EPISODE 82: Right Against Double Jeopardy

Welcome to the Supreme Court Podcast. All opinions expressed in this podcast do not reflect the views of the Supreme Court. For clarity, the text of the decision prevails. In 2012, Manuel Teobara Jr. vice president for litigation of the CGH Development Corporation filed a complaint after David before the office of the enforcement, charging attorney Arnell Paschano di Casanova. Then chief executive officer of the Basis Conversion and Development Authority with violations of Republic Act #3019 or the Anti-Graph and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act #6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and Presidential Decree #807 or the Civil Service Decree. O'Bara alleged that Attorney Casanova failed to promptly respond to two letters sent by CGH Development Corporation. In response, Casanova argued that the letters were not addressed to him, but to then B.C. Day president General Narciso El Abaya, who had already replied, Casanova subsequently filed a perjury case against O'Bara. The Metropolitan trial court found O'Bara guilty of perjury, with a prosecution primarily relying on Attorney Casanova's testimony through a judicial affidavit. However, the regional trial court later acquitted O'Bara, citing the absence of testimony from Attorney Casanova directly identifying O'Bara as the person responsible for the alleged crime. The RTC impliedly acknowledged that it did not consider the context of Casanova's judicial affidavit in its decision, as the affidavit was not included in the records transmitted to the RTC. The Office of the Solicitor General appealed the RTC's ruling to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of this question and disregarding critical evidence in acquitting O'Bara. The CA ruled in favor of the OSG, prompting O'Bara to elevate the case to the Supreme Court, invoking the constitutional protection against a double jeopardy. The SC affirmed the CA's decision. Does the guarantee against double jeopardy 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? Hi, I'm Attorney Mike Navalio, Supreme Court Chief Communications Officer. It's the 22nd of August 2025, and today we talk about the right against double jeopardy within the context of the case of Manuel T. O'Bara Jr. versus People of the Philippines. G. R. 24-9890, penned by associate justice Ramón Paul El Hernando, decided on October 9, 2024. And joining us again to talk about this case is Court of Appeals associate justice Jaime Fortunato E. Carinhal, member of the remedial law department of the Philippine Judicial Academy. Hi, Justice Jack, welcome back to the Supreme Court podcast. Hi, Attorney Mike, great to be back. Great to have you on again on this podcast. Last week, justice, we talked about acquittals. And what happens if you have been acquitted? Can you still be resubjected to trial and worse convicted? Let's talk about this right against double jeopardy. What does it mean? And what is its legal basis? Okay, so the right against double jeopardy, I must state, is a constitutional right. In fact, it is enshrined in Section 21, Article 3 of our Constitution, which provides that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of the punishment for the same offense. So when we talk about double jeopardy, it provides for three protections or three related protections. The first is a protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after you already have been acquitted. Second, it also provides a protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after you have been convicted of the offense. And the third is it also protects against multiple punishments from the same offense. So when we talk about double jeopardy, it prevents the state from using its criminal processes as an instrument to harass you or wear you out as an accused by filing a multitude of cases with accumulated trials. And it also serves the additional purpose of precluding the state, following an acquittal from successfully retrying an accused in the hope of security a conviction. So I will have to add that it protects the accused not against the peril of a second punishment, but against being tried again. There's a very big difference between the two. Right. Because you can just imagine the impact on a particular accused if you're facing multiple suits or perhaps if you've been tried for this case and then you're going to get tried again for another similar case for the same acts. Yes. Well, I think I have to clarify that when we talk about the right against double jeopardy, it really pertains to the same offense. You can no longer be tried for the same or rather prosecuted for the same offense if you have already been acquitted or convicted for that same offense. But this does not include say acts which could lead to multiple liabilities. Yes. That's right. It might one act that may be considered two crimes. Correct. For example, issue one of a check. For example, you can be convicted both for BP22 and then others if there is deceit. Staff, that's right. That's right. Thanks for clarifying us this. Now, are there exceptions to the right against double jeopardy? Okay. There has been established in jurisprudence that there is one single narrow exception to this. And that is grave abuse of discretion that has resulted in the violation of the state's right to due process, which therefore renders the judgment of a Quital Void. And this happens when the prosecution is denied the opportunity to present evidence when the trial is a sham or if there is a mistrial. Okay. So, specifically when the prosecution is denied the opportunity to present evidence, we find this in the case of Obara. So we will be discussing this now. When the trial is a sham or if there is a mistrial, this happens when there is a like an egregious mistake when it comes to by the judge or by the court in trying the accused, no, in violation of certain rights of the accused. And maybe just to give our listeners a full picture of this, a more specific concrete case. The case of Manuel Obara Jr. He was charged with and convicted by the Metropolitan trial court of perjury for making false allegations against Attorney Arnell Casanova, the CEO of the Basis Conversion and Development Authority. And on appeal to the regional trial court, he was acquitted. Before we talk about double jeopardy, what was the basis here for the acquital justice and how crucial is this in determining whether there was double jeopardy? Okay. So the basis for Obara's acquital is, well, the supposed absence of the testimony, supposedly from Attorney Casanova, positively identifying Obara as the person responsible for the crime. This is important because this fact bears upon whether or not the regional trial court in that case acted with grave abuse of discretion, resulting to a violation of the state's right to due process when it acquitted Obara on the basis of a grossly incomplete record and notwithstanding several clear indications that Attorney Casanova really submitted and submitted this judicial affidavit and testified on it. And so if the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion, then double jeopardy will not attach. And justice just for the benefit of our listeners, we talk about the judicial affidavit. What is this document and how integral is it in legal proceedings if it is presented or if it suddenly becomes missing? Okay. So in judicial affidavit is really a written sworn statement executed by the witness. Wherein it memorializes the testimony of the witness, and what particularly the direct testimony of the witness. And so because it embodies the testimony of a witness, the direct testimony of a witness, a judicial affidavit is indispensable for the admission of a witness's testimony and related evidence in trial. If it is presented, the judicial affidavit forms the direct testimony of a witness and is considered part of the evidence. But if it is missing and it is not attached to the record, the witness generally cannot be presented during trial. And so in this case, there's both the missing judicial affidavit and also supposedly the witness did not testify. Yes. Also, so two points here. So the office of the solicitor general acting as a counsel for the state filed a petition for surgery before the court of appeals. They tried to challenge Obara's acquittal. What grounds did they raise and how did it argue that double jeopardy does not apply? Okay. In this case, the state through the OSG ascribed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC when it acquitted barra on the basis 's of the perported absence of attorney kasanova judicial affidavit under records, no of the case. And disregarding other evidence under record. To the state, particularly as argued by the OSG, this amounted to grave abuse of discretion. And as I said, because there was grave abuse of discretion, the OSG was at the month in saying that double jeopardy did not attach. Mmm. And Justice NVN, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, which overturned the acquittal. What led the Supreme Court to conclude that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion resulting to a violation of the state's right to do process? Okay. So if you read the case, there are three grounds cited by the Supreme Court, in ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. First of all, the Supreme Court said that the RTC summarily imputed the absence of attorney kasanova's judicial affidavit to unallege deceit by the state when it claimed that they filed a judicial affidavit. In so doing, the RTC blatantly disregarded several clear indications on the record that attorney kasanova's judicial affidavit was actually filed. It was offered in evidence, and in fact, it was admitted by the Metropolitan Trial Court. So in other words, the Supreme Court was saying, "Well, the RTC acted in an adjuice, in saying that there was already deceit on the part of the state, when the state claimed that there was a judicial affidavit, because in truth, and in fact, there really was a judicial affidavit." No. The second ground that was cited by the Supreme Court was saying stated that, "Well, the RTC should have, instead of hastily acquitting Obara, should have taken other measures, such as giving the state the opportunity to explain or giving the state the opportunity to submit the supposed missing judicial affidavit, but it did not." And then the third, the Supreme Court said that the RTC's acquital of Obara due supposedly to the failure to identify him is based on flimsy grounds, because he clearly, based on the case records, Obara admitted that he was the one who filed a complaint with the Ombudsman, and secondly, he never even denied being the person who was indicted in the information. So those were the grounds cited by the Supreme Court to declare that there was grave abuse of discretion. And that's why the S.C. held that the right against double jeopardy of the accused may not be invoked in this particular instance, just this. Yes. The Supreme Court said that because the RTC's judgment of acquital is void, having been rendered in violation of the state's right to be heard and to prosecute its case, then the Supreme Court said that the accused against double jeopardy may not be invoked against an acquital that, as we said, is void because it is no judgment at all. And I know just this that in the dispositive portion of the decision, the Supreme Court demanded the case of the RTC, what is the significance of this order to remain the case? Well, this order signifies that since there was no judgment at all, the case now needs to undergo further proceedings in the court of origin, not to ensure that it is completely and properly resolved, taking into consideration all the evidence, including that supposed missing Judicial Affidavit and then the evidence that was attached to it. And just this, perhaps just to sum up our discussion today, perhaps we can answer these two questions. Are judgments of acquital final or are there exceptions? Does the guarantee against double jeopardy preclude the court from declaring a judgment of acquital as void when it has been rendered in violation of a state's right to be heard in prosecute its case? Okay. Again, generally, this is generally a judgment of acquital whether ordered by the trial or the appellate court is final, unappelable, and immediately executed upon its promulgation. That is the finality of acquital doctrine. However, there are two exceptions to this finality of acquital doctrine. First is when the prosecution was denied due process, as we saw in this case, and second, when it is the accused who appeals, because an appeal in a criminal case throws the entire case open for the appellate court's review. And then the appellate court is then called on to render such judgment as law and justice may dictate whether it is favorable or unfavorable to the accused. Now, again, the principle behind this is that the state with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for unallaged offense. Therefore, subjecting him or her to additional expense, embarrassment, or deal. Yes, I can imagine. And finally, just this, what should be our key takeaway from this discussion? Okay, so the key takeaway for me is that our constitution protects the right to due process of both the state and the accused in criminal cases. So to repeat, the guarantee against double jeopardy does not preclude the court from declaring a judgment of acquital as void when it has been rendered in violation of the state's right to be heard and to prosecute its case. Thank you very much, Justice Karingal, for joining us again. Thank you very much. What can you make sao-wa? We will definitely take you on that. To our listeners, if you wish to read the full text of the court's decision, please visit the Supreme Court website and e-library look for Manuel Diobada Jr. versus people of the Philippines, G.R. Number 249890. Here's Stefa Tindy D'Do Beltran, Supreme Court Information Officer for this week's Roundup. From the Supreme Court of the Philippines, here's the latest. The Supreme Court on Tuesday, August 19, began hearing arguments on the petition for recognition of foreign divorce in G.R. Number 257575. The case involves a Filipino couple married in the Philippines, but who obtained divorce in the United States. The husband, a dual citizen, later became an American citizen before reacquiring Filipino citizenship. Counsel for a petitioner attorney Melvin Mane argued for the recognition of the foreign divorce while counsel for a public respondent to the minister general Darlin Maribar Barabe warned that allowing the petition would encourage Filipinos to go abroad, seek divorce, and change citizenship. The family co-ed currently recognizes divorce obtained abroad between a Filipino and a foreigner if the divorce was secured by the foreigner. Experts on family law and personal relations were invited as a Michikere. The oral arguments will resume on October 21, 2025. Meanwhile, the SC has appellated the ruling of the commission on elections or Khamalek, affirming the validity of the 2022 Constitution and bylaws, of Partido Federal Nang Pilipinas or PFB, which provides for a three-year term for party officers. The court on bank through the peninsia of associate Justice Maria Filamentasing, ruled that Renal Dutamayo Jr., Thomson Lantion, and George Breonas, are the Julie recognized officers by the PFB under its 2022 Constitution and bylaws. The SC appellate Khamalek's ruling that the 2022 Constitution and bylaws replace the 2018 version and confirm their terms until 2024. In another case, the SC has ruled that the recovery of a Karnabd vehicle does not prevent the insured owner from receiving full payment under an insurance policy. In a peninsia by associate Justice Henry John Paul Indeen, the SC's third division ordered UCPB General Insurance Co-Ink to pay with Fridowi Hanco for the loss of his stolen car. The SC emphasized that theft is complete once the vehicle is unlawfully taken. Recovery does not erase the fact of theft. Section 249 of the insurance code requires insurance to pay claims within specified periods after receiving proof of loss. Once this period lapses and before the insured vehicle is recovered, the insured payment for the loss becomes final, and the insured cannot be compelled to accept the recovered vehicle. On Monday, August 18, Chief Justice Alexander Hismundo and Associate Justice Jose Mayda Smarkez led the opening and ribbon cutting of the art exhibit of the Bagongboha group of artists or Baga at the SC main building lobby. The Baga is an art collective organized by former persons deprived of liberty or PDLs. The exhibit features the works of Baga members, as well as art pieces and handicrafts created by PDLs from the city jails of Las Pines, Makati, Manila, and Pazing. Exhibit visitors on the first day were treated to free coffee from Expresso, a mobile cafe run by persons restored of liberty to support their reintegration into society. The exhibit will run until August 29, 2025. You are now up to date with the Philippine Supreme Court. Defit and deedable trend Supreme Court Information Officer. And that's our podcast this week. Join us again next time for a detailed discussion of select cases decided by the Supreme Court. I'm attorney Mike Navalio, your Supreme Court Chief Communications Officer. You can catch this podcast and the Supreme Court Public Information Office's accounts on X, Facebook, Instagram, threads, YouTube, and Spotify. You can also catch previous editions on our website and on Spotify. This podcast episode was produced by the Supreme Court Public Information Office with attorney Karen Martinez, Jay Renpelio, and May C. by Las researchers. Brian Austria, Don Ryan Balza, Victor Llano, Lawrence Olano, and I'm going to talk about the next episode. o sinaliskad, and bayabatong as audio and video editors. And Taik Flores, sanjarong batumalake as web editors.