THE Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that courts have the authority to reopen a case and may even impose a higher penalty for the crime committed when the accused appeals their conviction.
This ruling is a departure from previous jurisprudence where the SC held that it can no longer review “downgrading” of a crime by the trial court or appellate court without violating the accused’s right against double jeopardy, which proscribes an appeal from a judgment of acquittal or for the purpose of increasing the penalty imposed upon the accused.
This was the gist of the High Court’s ruling in a case promulgated last February 18 but only made public last Tuesday, wherein the magistrates found the accused guilty of attempted rape instead of unjust vexation, and imposed a heavier penalty.
Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr. penned the ruling, which abandons the earlier doctrine in People vs. Balunsat, prohibiting a reviewing court from increasing the penalty meted out on the accused when the case is appealed to protect them from double jeopardy.
The SC sentenced the accused to a maximum of 40 years in prison for rape and up to 12 years in prison for attempted rape. He was also ordered to pay P300,000 in damages.
Records of the case showed that the 16-year-old victim’s father “sexually violated” her in January 2013.
The victim told the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Medina, Misamis Oriental, during the trial that she was too weak to fight back and unable to make any noise, as her father covered her mouth with his hand.
She also said he threatened to kill her and other relatives if she told anyone about the incident.
A few weeks later, the accused attempted to rape her anew but the victim managed to stop him by kneeing him in the stomach, forcing him to leave the room.
When the victim went to work in Cagayan de Oro in February 2013, she confided the rape to her brother and grandmother, who helped her report the incidents to the police.
The RTC found the accused guilty of rape for the first incident but convicted him only of unjust vexation for the second.
The trial court explained in its ruling that he could not be convicted of attempted rape because he stopped himself and left the room before completing the act.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision on the unjust vexation in a ruling dated January 26, 2021, declaring that he cannot be held guilty of attempted rape, and that to be held guilty of such crime, the accused must have commenced the act of inserting his penis into the victim’s vagina.
On appeal, the SC upheld the accused conviction for the first incident, finding all the elements of rape present.
However, the High Court disagreed with the RTC and CA on the second incident, and found the accused guilty of attempted rape, which carries a heavier penalty than unjust vexation.
“There is attempted rape where the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution, which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance,” the SC ruling held.
“In attempted rape by carnal knowledge, there is no requirement that the offender’s penis touch the victim’s genitalia or any other part of her body. Instead, what is required are overt acts by the offender in commencing the direct commission of the crime,” it added.
The SC acknowledged that in several earlier decisions, it had limited its review of appeals to avoid violating the accused’s right against double jeopardy, which prohibits a person from being prosecuted or punished more than once for the same offense.
It cited the 2010 case of People vs. Balunsat when it said it could no longer review the CA’s decision to downgrade the conviction from attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness, as this amounted to an acquittal on the more serious charge.
It emphasized then that an acquittal is immediately final and cannot be appealed.
But in the present case, the SC held that Balunsat was incorrect in invoking the accused’s right against double jeopardy, adding that when the accused appeals a conviction, they waive this right and open the entire case for review, including the possibility of a heavier penalty.
“For clarity, the Court declares that the doctrine laid down in Balunsat is hereby abandoned. The rule must be emphasized that when the accused appeals from the judgment in a criminal case, the entire case is open for review. Such a comprehensive review may result, as law and justice dictate, in a heavier penalty. The Court may, as in this case, reverse the downgrading of the offense where it finds guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime carrying the more severe penalty,” the SC explained.
It further stressed that the reviewing court can correct errors not raised by the appealing party or even reverse the trial court’s decision on entirely different grounds.
“An appeal gives the reviewing court full jurisdiction over the case, allowing it to examine records, modify the judgment, and increase the penalty,” it said.
