[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
54 views2 pages

People vs. Torres: G.R. No., September 22, 2014 Prepared By: Mataga, Landrel M

The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant could be found guilty of robbery with homicide, overturning his acquittal of robbery by the trial court. When the appellant appealed his conviction for murder, it opened the entire case for the appellate court's review, including issues not raised by the parties. By appealing, the appellant waived his right to invoke double jeopardy protections, as it became the duty of the appellate court to correct any errors in the trial court's judgment. Therefore, modifying the ruling to find the appellant guilty of robbery with homicide did not place him in double jeopardy.

Uploaded by

Landrel Mataga
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
54 views2 pages

People vs. Torres: G.R. No., September 22, 2014 Prepared By: Mataga, Landrel M

The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant could be found guilty of robbery with homicide, overturning his acquittal of robbery by the trial court. When the appellant appealed his conviction for murder, it opened the entire case for the appellate court's review, including issues not raised by the parties. By appealing, the appellant waived his right to invoke double jeopardy protections, as it became the duty of the appellate court to correct any errors in the trial court's judgment. Therefore, modifying the ruling to find the appellant guilty of robbery with homicide did not place him in double jeopardy.

Uploaded by

Landrel Mataga
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/ 2

People vs.

Torres
G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014
Prepared by: Mataga, Landrel M.

Facts:
 An Amended lnformation was filed before the charging siblings Reynaldo Torres (Reynaldo), Jay Torres
(Jay), Ronnie Torres (Ronnie) and appellant with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
committed against Jaime M. Espino (Espino).

In its December 5, 2006 Decision, the RTC held that appellant could not have committed robbery. It
ratiocinated, viz:

Even granting that the element of taking is present, still, accused cannot be held liable for the complex
crime of robbery with homicide for the reason that it was not indubitably shown that the main purpose
of the accused was to rob the victim. To the mind of the Court, this is precisely the reason why the
prosecution skipped the utterances made by the protagonist[s] during the attack. To sustain a
[conviction] for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the
culprit must be robbery and the homicide is perpetrated with a view to the consummation of the
robbery, or by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The crime of robbery not having been
indubitably established, the accused cannot be convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. The RTC thus concluded that appellant can only be liable for the killing of Espino.

The CA modified the ruling of the RTC, i.e., finding appellant guilty of robbery with homicide instead of
murder.  The CA found that the primary intention of appellant and his co-accused was to rob Espino and
his killing was only incidental to the robbery. 

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.

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 overturned without violating the proscription
against double jeopardy.

Ruling:

No. 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." "[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." 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