It has always been a cardinal rule under our penal laws that once a person is acquitted of the crime, the decision of the court is immediately final and executory. That means that the decision can no longer be subjected to an appeal to a higher court. If the accused is detained in jail, he walks out outright without fear that the ruling can still be overturned. And this right is guaranteed by no less than our very Constitution. But just like any law, this rule on appeal is not hard and fast and still admits an exception. That is if the court rendered the decision with grave abuse of discretion. Thus on appeal, if the appellate court finds the presence of such abuse, it may reverse the acquittal. Let me illustrate via a case.
Ms. M issued several postdated checks to JMV Corporation as monthly amortization for the car the latter purchased for her. While some checks went good upon deposit, the rest bounced later. Her attention was allegedly called to that and she promised to pay. Time passed though when the checks remained unsettled. Feeling aggrieved, the corporation had no other recourse but to file a criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa 22, known as the Bouncing Checks law. After the Metropolitan Trial Court received the pieces of evidence, it pronounced judgment against Ms. M.
Of course, she could not accept the verdict and she appealed the decision to the next-tier court, the Regional Trial Court. Upon review of the evidence, the said court ruled in favor of Ms. M acquitting her of the crime. It was thus the corporation's turn to go up to the next level, the Court of Appeals. Its mode of appeal was via a petition for a writ of certiorari. Under this mode, it is not the decision per se of the lower court that is being assailed. Rather it was the way the decision is rendered. That is, it was done with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
If the appellate court finds that the decision is indeed tainted with such, the result will be the reversal of the lower court's order. And that is exactly what the CA did. It ruled that the RTC rendered its decision with grave abuse. Accordingly, the acquittal of Ms. M was reversed and her conviction was reinstated. Obviously, Ms. M could not accept such a judgment. She already won the hard-fought battle, but then again faced conviction. Thus her turn to elevate the matter to the highest court — the Supreme Court.
The issue posed before the Highest Court was whether the CA was correct in entertaining the case despite the fact that Ms. M was already acquitted. Thus said the Supreme Court, "in criminal cases, no rule is more settled than that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and unappealable. Such a rule proceeds from the accused's constitutionally-enshrined right against prosecution if the same would place him under double jeopardy. Thus, a judgment in such cases, once rendered, may no longer be recalled for correction, or amendment — regardless of any claim of error or incorrectness."
However, to this, the same Court was quick to add that "the Court is not unaware that, in some situations, it had allowed a review from a judgment of acquittal through the extraordinary remedy of Rule 65 petition for certiorari. A survey of these exceptional instances would, however, show that such review was only allowed where the prosecution was denied due process or where the trial was a sham."
"It is clear then as explained that there still exists an avenue for a party to contest the acquittal of the accused. For as long as grounds exist, certiorari is availing."
"In the present case, however, was there grave abuse of discretion? "Guided by the foregoing, the Court so finds that the CA committed reversible error when it annulled the RTC's Decision based merely on errors of jurisdiction. Hence, in this case, even assuming that the Reply-Letter was appended to the records, the fact still remains that the court cannot consider evidence that was not formally offered. Verily, the RTC could not be faulted, much less accused of capriciousness, in appreciating the evidence without the Reply-Letter.
As already stressed above, it was an error on the part of the CA to have entertained such an issue as this merely involved the appreciation of evidence.
With the foregoing, the Court finds the totality of evidence insufficient to establish the critical element of receipt of notice of dishonor; hence the CA erred in annulling the Decision of the RTC based on grave abuse of discretion."
The takeaway. An acquittal, if rendered with grave abuse of discretion, can still be appealed and reversed. The grave abuse of discretion must not be confused with an error of judgment.
The facts and quotations are taken from Maria Nympha Mandagan v. Jose M. Valero Corporation, G.R. 215118 promulgated on 19 June 2019.
