Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1647-Bustamante v. Maceren - 48 SCRA 155
1647-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
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.