THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellant, (a) The fiscal, on behalf of the People of the

vs. Philippines, must offer evidence in support of the

AURELIO BALISACAN, defendant and appellee. charges.

BENGZON, J.P., J.: (b) The defendant or his attorney may offer evidence in support
of the defense.

This is an appeal by the prosecution from a decision of acquittal.

(c) The parties may then respectively offer rebutting evidence
only, unless the court, in furtherance of justice, permit them to
On February 1, 1965, Aurelio Balisacan was charged with offer new additional evidence bearing upon the main issue in
homicide in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. The question.
information alleged: That on or about December 3, 1964, in the
Municipality of Nueva Era, province of Ilocos Norte, Philippines, (d) When the introduction of evidence shall have been
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein concluded, unless the case is submitted to the court without
accused, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully argument, the fiscal must open the argument, the attorney for
and feloniously attack, assault and stab one, Leonicio Bulaoat, the defense must follow, and the fiscal may conclude the same.
inflicting upon the latter wounds that immediately caused his The argument by either attorney may be oral or written, or
partly written, but only the written arguments, or such portions
death. CONTRARY TO LAW. of the same as may be in writing, shall be preserved in the
record of the case.
To this charge the accused, upon being arraigned, entered a plea of
guilty. In doing so, he was assisted by counsel. At his de In deciding the case upon the merits without the requisite trial, the court a
oficio counsel's petition, however, he was allowed to present quo not only erred in procedure but deprived the prosecution of its day in
evidence to prove mitigating circumstances. Thereupon the court and right to be heard.
accused testified to the effect that he stabbed the deceased in self-
defense because the latter was strangling him. And he further This Court now turns to Section 2, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, which
stated that after the incident he surrendered himself voluntarily to provides that: "The People of the Philippines can not appeal if the defendant
the police authorities. would be placed thereby in double jeopardy." The present state of
jurisprudence in this regard is that the above provision applies even if the
accused fails to file a brief and raise the question of double jeopardy (People
Subsequently, on March 6, 1965, on the basis of the above- v. Ferrer, L-9072, October 23, 1956; People v. Bao, L-12102, September 29,
mentioned testimony of the accused, the court a quorendered a 1959; People v. De Golez, L-14160, June 30, 1960).
decision acquitting the accused. As stated, the prosecution
appealed therefrom. The next issue, therefore, is whether this appeal placed the accused in double
jeopardy. It is settled that the existence of a plea is an essential requisite to
This appeal was first taken to the Court of Appeals. Appellant filed double jeopardy (People v. Ylagan, 58 Phil. 851; People v. Quimsing, L-
19860, December 23, 1964). In the present case, it is true, the accused had
its brief on September 9, 1965. No appellee's brief was filed. After first entered a plea of guilty. Subsequently, however, he testified, in the
being submitted for decision without appellee's brief, the appeal course of being allowed to prove mitigating circumstances, that he acted in
was certified to Us by the Court of Appeals on July 14, 1966, as complete self-defense. Said testimony, therefore — as the court a
involving questions purely of law (Sec. 17, Republic Act 296). quo recognized in its decision — had the effect of vacating his plea of guilty
And on August 5, 1966, We ordered it docketed hereinThe sole and the court a quo should have required him to plead a new on the charge,
assignment of error is: or at least direct that a new plea of not guilty be entered for him. This was
not done. It follows that in effect there having been no standing plea at the
time the court a quo rendered its judgment of acquittal, there can be no
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACQUITTING THE double jeopardy with respect to the appeal herein. 1
ACCUSED OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED DESPITE
THE LATTER'S PLEA OF GUILTY WHEN Furthermore, as afore-stated, the court a quo decided the case upon the
ARRAIGNED. merits without giving the prosecution any opportunity to present its evidence
or even to rebut the testimony of the defendant. In doing so, it clearly acted
without due process of law. And for lack of this fundamental prerequisite, its
Appellant's contention is meritorious. A plea of guilty is an action is perforce null and void. The acquittal, therefore, being a nullity for
unconditional admission of guilt with respect to the offense want of due process, is no acquittal at all, and thus can not constitute a
charged. It forecloses the right to defend oneself from said charge proper basis for a claim of former jeopardy (People v. Cabero, 61 Phil. 121;
and leaves the court with no alternative but to impose the penalty 21 Am. Jur. 2d. 235; McCleary v. Hudspeth 124 Fed. 2d. 445).
fixed by law under the circumstances. (People v. Ng Pek, 81 Phil.
563). In this case, the defendant was only allowed to testify in It should be noted that in rendering the judgment of acquittal, the trial judge
order to establish mitigating circumstances, for the purposes of below already gave credence to the testimony of the accused. In fairness to
fixing the penalty. Said testimony, therefore, could not be taken as the prosecution, without in any way doubting the integrity of said trial judge,
a trial on the merits, to determine the guilt or innocence of the We deem it proper to remand this case to the court a quo for further
accused. proceedings under another judge of the same court, in one of the two other
branches of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte sitting at Laoag.

In view of the assertion of self-defense in the testimony of the

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby set aside and this case is
accused, the proper course should have been for the court a quo to remanded to the court a quo for further proceedings under another judge of
take defendant's plea anew and then proceed with the trial of the said court, that is, for plea by the defendant, trial with presentation of
case, in the order set forth in Section 3 of Rule 119 of the Rules of evidence for the prosecution and the defense, and judgment thereafter, No
Court: costs. So ordered.

SEC. 3. Order of trial. — The plea of not guilty having been

entered, the trial must proceed in the following order: