Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1647-Bustamante v. Maceren - 48 SCRA 155

    Uploaded by

    Estee Xooh
    77 views2 pages
    The petitioner was found guilty of murder by one judge and sentenced to imprisonment. After starting to serve his sentence, a new judge allowed the withdrawal of the guilty plea and reassigned the case to himself. The new judge then held a new trial, found the petitioner guilty of homicide, and imposed a new sentence. The petitioner argued this violated double jeopardy protections. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that no case can be re-opened after the accused has started serving the sentence, and the original judgment was final once the sentence began to be served. Withdrawal of the guilty plea did not waive the right to invoke double jeopardy against a second prosecution for the same offense.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioner was found guilty of murder by one judge and sentenced to imprisonment. After starting to serve his sentence, a new judge allowed the withdrawal of the guilty plea and reassigned the case to himself. The new judge then held a new trial, found the petitioner guilty of homicide, and imposed a new sentence. The petitioner argued this violated double jeopardy protections. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that no case can be re-opened after the accused has started serving the sentence, and the original judgment was final once the sentence began to be served. Withdrawal of the guilty plea did not waive the right to invoke double jeopardy against a second prosecution for the same offense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    77 views2 pages

    1647-Bustamante v. Maceren - 48 SCRA 155

    Uploaded by

    Estee Xooh
    The petitioner was found guilty of murder by one judge and sentenced to imprisonment. After starting to serve his sentence, a new judge allowed the withdrawal of the guilty plea and reassigned the case to himself. The new judge then held a new trial, found the petitioner guilty of homicide, and imposed a new sentence. The petitioner argued this violated double jeopardy protections. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that no case can be re-opened after the accused has started serving the sentence, and the original judgment was final once the sentence began to be served. Withdrawal of the guilty plea did not waive the right to invoke double jeopardy against a second prosecution for the same offense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Bustamante v.

    Maceren 48 SCRA 155

    FACTS: This suit for certiorari was filed with the avowed aim of correcting a judicial
    misstep presumably offensive to the constitutional right of petitioner not to be twice put
    in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense The petitioner was accused of
    murder in an information filed with the Court of First Instance of Laguna
    petitioner entered a plea of guilty, and after proving the privileged mitigating
    circumstance of incomplete self-defense .the Court finds the accused Danilo
    Bustamante guilty of the crime of murder as charged in the information.
    Considering in his favor the privileged mitigating Circumstances of incomplete
    self-defense, plea of guilty, voluntary surrender and lack of intent to commit
    so grave a wrong,

    Accordingly, the Hon. Judge Jorge Coquia, who rendered the aforesaid judgment,
    issued a commitment order dated December 14, 1970, addressed to the Provincial
    Warden of Laguna . . ., and the Provincial Warden, also on the same day, acknowledged
    receipt of the body of the petitioner, who forthwith started serving his sentence of
    imprisonment on that date . . .;

    On December 21, 1970, the Hon. Judge Jorge Coquia issued the following order:
    ‘Submitted for resolution is the motion for modification of penalty filed by the
    Assistant Provincial Fiscal. On the other hand accused through counsel in view
    of the motion of the prosecution filed a motion for withdrawal of plea of guilty
    and waiver of commitment. But in view of the motion of accused, the motion of the
    prosecution has become moot and academic and the motion filed by the accused is
    hereby granted petitioner was reassigned to the sala presided over by the
    Honorable Maximo Maceren, before whom petitioner was re arraigned and after
    petitioner entered a plea of not guilty, said judge held a new hearing of the case on the
    merits and thereafter, Judge Maceren rendered a new judgment against
    petitioner the accused Danilo Bustamante y Villanueva is hereby declared guilty
    beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide, and applying the provisions of the
    Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
    surrender in his favor, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six
    (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one
    (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum; to indemnify the heirs of the offended party
    in the sum of P12,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to
    pay the costs. Considering that the accused is now serving under preventive
    imprisonment, he shall be credited for the period of his preventive imprisonment
    pursuant to the provisions of Rep. Act 6127.’ . . .; Petitioner filed a Motion for
    Reconsideration of the above decision in which motion petitioner questioned
    the jurisdiction of the trial court to try his case anew after he had fully served
    the judgment rendered by Judge Coquia against him Petitioner, in said motion,
    argued that the judgment against him had already become final when he started
    serving his sentence thereunder and that therefore, the Court thereafter lost
    jurisdiction over his case; and that no amount of waiver or consent on his part could
    bestow on said court jurisdiction that it had already lost. At the hearing of said motion,
    however, the respondent Judge Maximo Maceren took the position that he could not
    nullify an order of another judge of equal rank and that only a higher court had the
    authority to nullify said order

    ISSUE:WON the petitioner is place in double jeopardy

    RULING:No re-opening of a case may be ordered of a criminal case after accused has started
    serving his sentence; a judgment in a criminal case becomes final after the lapse of the period for
    perfecting an appeal or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served or the
    defendant that waived in writing his appeal; withdrawal of plea of guilty does not constitute waiver of
    defense of double jeopardy timely invoked.

    You might also like