THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. AURELIO BALISACAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

People versus Balisacan

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Aurelio Balisacan, a criminal case for homicide decided by the Supreme Court in August 1966. The accused was charged with stabbing a man to death in Nueva Era, Ilocos Norte, and when arraigned he entered a plea of guilty. The trial court then allowed him to testify, and on the strength of that testimony it acquitted him. The prosecution appealed the acquittal. The case matters because it teaches two things every bar candidate must hold firmly: what a plea of guilty really is, and when an acquittal is so defective that it cannot bar a second prosecution on the ground of double jeopardy.

Procedural History

Aurelio Balisacan was charged with homicide in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. Upon arraignment, assisted by counsel, he pleaded guilty. At the petition of his counsel de oficio, the court allowed him to present evidence to prove mitigating circumstances. He then testified that he had acted in self-defense and that he had voluntarily surrendered after the incident. On the basis of that testimony, the trial court rendered a decision acquitting him.

The prosecution appealed. The appeal was first taken to the Court of Appeals, where the People filed their brief and no appellee's brief was filed. The Court of Appeals certified the appeal to the Supreme Court as involving questions purely of law, and the Supreme Court ordered the case docketed. The sole assignment of error was that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite his plea of guilty.

Facts

On or about the third of December 1964, in the municipality of Nueva Era, Ilocos Norte, Leonicio Bulaoat was stabbed and died from the wounds inflicted on him. On the first of February 1965, an information for homicide was filed against Aurelio Balisacan, alleging that with intent to kill he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attacked and stabbed the deceased.

At arraignment, assisted by counsel, the accused entered a plea of guilty. His counsel de oficio then petitioned that he be allowed to present evidence of mitigating circumstances, and the court granted this. The accused took the witness stand and testified that he had stabbed the deceased in self-defense because the deceased was strangling him, and that he had voluntarily surrendered to the police afterward.

On the sixth of March 1965, relying on that testimony, the trial court acquitted the accused. The prosecution appealed, and the case reached the Supreme Court on a pure question of law.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite his plea of guilty at arraignment.
• Whether or not the appeal placed the accused in double jeopardy.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, on the order of trial, provides:

Section 3. Order of trial. The plea of not guilty having been entered, the trial must proceed in the following order: (a) The fiscal, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, must offer evidence in support of the charges. (b) The defendant or his attorney may offer evidence in support of the defense. (c) The parties may then respectively offer, rebutting evidence only, unless the court, in furtherance of justice, permit them to offer new additional evidence bearing upon the main issue in question. (d) When the introduction of evidence shall have been concluded, unless the case is submitted to the court without argument, the fiscal must open the argument, the attorney for the defense must follow, and the fiscal may conclude the same. The argument by either attorney may be oral or written, or partly written, but only the written arguments, or such portions of the same as may be in writing, shall be preserved in the record of the case.

This provision fixes the sequence the trial court should have followed once the plea of guilty was vacated, beginning with the prosecution's evidence.

Section 2 of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, on appeals by the People, provides:

The People of the Philippines can not appeal if the defendant would be placed thereby in double jeopardy.

This is the barrier the Court had to test against the facts, because the accused never raised double jeopardy himself.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled for the prosecution. A plea of guilty is an unconditional admission of guilt with respect to the offense charged. It forecloses the right to defend oneself from that charge and leaves the court with no alternative but to impose the penalty fixed by law under the circumstances. The accused was allowed to testify only to establish mitigating circumstances for the purpose of fixing the penalty, so his testimony could not be taken as a trial on the merits to determine guilt or innocence. Because he asserted self-defense, the proper course was for the trial court to take his plea anew and then proceed with trial in the order set by Section 3 of Rule 119. In deciding on the merits without the requisite trial, the court not only erred in procedure but deprived the prosecution of its day in court and its right to be heard.

On the second issue, the Court held that the appeal did not place the accused in double jeopardy. The People cannot appeal if the defendant would thereby be placed in double jeopardy, and this applies even if the accused fails to file a brief and raise the question. But the existence of a plea is an essential requisite to double jeopardy. Here the accused first pleaded guilty, yet his testimony of complete self-defense had the effect of vacating that plea, as the trial court itself recognized. The court should then have required him to plead anew, or at least directed that a new plea of not guilty be entered for him. This was not done. In effect there was no standing plea at the time the judgment of acquittal was rendered, so there could be no double jeopardy.

The Court added that the trial court decided the case on the 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 action was null and void. The acquittal, being a nullity for want of due process, is no acquittal at all, and cannot be a proper basis for a claim of former jeopardy. Because the trial judge had already given credence to the accused's testimony, the Court, in fairness to the prosecution, remanded the case for 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.

Doctrine

A plea of guilty is an unconditional admission of guilt with respect to the offense charged. It forecloses the right to defend oneself and leaves the court no alternative but to impose the penalty fixed by law under the circumstances. Testimony offered only to establish mitigating circumstances for purposes of fixing the penalty is not a trial on the merits.

When an accused who pleaded guilty testifies to a complete defense such as self-defense, that testimony vacates the plea of guilty. The court must then take the plea anew or direct that a plea of not guilty be entered, and proceed with trial in the order set by Section 3 of Rule 119, with the prosecution first offering its evidence.

The existence of a plea is an essential requisite to double jeopardy. Where there is no standing plea at the time judgment is rendered, an appeal by the People does not place the accused in double jeopardy, even if he never raised the question.

An acquittal rendered without giving the prosecution any opportunity to present its evidence or to rebut the defense is void for want of due process. Being a nullity, it is no acquittal at all and cannot support a claim of former jeopardy.

Disposition

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of acquittal and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings under another judge, that is, for plea by the defendant, trial with presentation of evidence for the prosecution and the defense, and judgment thereafter, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a plea of guilty is an unconditional admission of guilt, and an acquittal rendered without due process is no acquittal at all and cannot bar a second prosecution. Examiners use this case on double jeopardy and on the requisites of a valid plea, especially the rule that the existence of a plea is essential to former jeopardy.