[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
139 views1 page

People V. Torres G.R. No. 189850 September 20, 2014

The Supreme Court ruled against the appellant Torres. While the appellant argued that modifying his conviction from murder to robbery with homicide violated double jeopardy protections since he was acquitted of robbery, the Court found that by appealing his conviction he waived those protections. When a defendant appeals a conviction, it opens the entire case to review and allows the appellate court to render any judgment supported by law and justice. Therefore, the CA did not violate double jeopardy in modifying the offense since the appellant abandoned that right by appealing the original conviction. The appeal was found to be unmeritorious.

Uploaded by

Areeya Manalastas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
139 views1 page

People V. Torres G.R. No. 189850 September 20, 2014

The Supreme Court ruled against the appellant Torres. While the appellant argued that modifying his conviction from murder to robbery with homicide violated double jeopardy protections since he was acquitted of robbery, the Court found that by appealing his conviction he waived those protections. When a defendant appeals a conviction, it opens the entire case to review and allows the appellate court to render any judgment supported by law and justice. Therefore, the CA did not violate double jeopardy in modifying the offense since the appellant abandoned that right by appealing the original conviction. The appeal was found to be unmeritorious.

Uploaded by

Areeya Manalastas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PEOPLE v.

TORRES
G.R. No. 189850
September 20, 2014
(waiver)

Facts:

1. Espino was driving his car along C.M. Recto Avenue in Divisoria, Manila when Ronnie suddenly
blocked his path. Espino alighted from his vehicle and approached Ronnie, who tried to grab his
belt bag. Espino resisted and struggled with Ronnie for the possession of his belt bag but the
latter’s brothers, Jay and Rey (appellant) took turns in stabbing Espino. Espino was rushed to the
hospital but was pronounced death on arrival.
2. Appellant denied any participation in the crime. He testified that he was with his girlfriend at the
time of the incident. They were having drinking session which lasted until they fell asleep.
3. RTC: warrant of arrest issue against accused
: appellant filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. Hence, appeal to the CA.
4. CA: modify the ruling of the RTC finding appellant guilty of robbery with homicide instead of
murder

Issue:

Whether or not the acquittal of the accused-appellant in the robbery charge should be left undisturbed
as being final and executory which cannot be overtuned without violating the proscription against
double jeopardy.

Ruling:

The appeal is unmeritorious.

In an appeal by an accused, he waives his right not to be subject to double jeopardy.

Appellant maintains that the CA erred in finding him liable for robbery with homicide as charged in the
Amended Information. He argues that his appeal to the CA was limited to his conviction for murder and
excluded his acquittal for robbery. And by appealing his conviction for murder, he does not waive his
constitutional right not to be subject to double jeopardy for the crime of robbery. He claims that even
assuming that the RTC erred in acquitting him of the robbery charge, such error can no longer be
questioned on appeal.

We cannot give credence to appellant’s contentions. "An appeal in [a] criminal case opens the entire
case for review on any question including one not raised by the parties."26 "[W]hen an accused appeals
from the sentence of the trial court, he waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and
throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court, which is then called upon to render
such judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable to the appellant."27 In other
words, when appellant appealed the RTC’s judgment of conviction for murder, he is deemed to have
abandoned his right to invoke the prohibition on double jeopardy since it became the duty of the
appellate court to correct errors as may be found in the appealed judgment. Thus, appellant could not
have been placed twice in jeopardy when the CA modified the ruling of the RTC by finding him guilty of
robbery with homicide as charged in the Information instead of murder.

You might also like