The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that when an accused appeals a criminal conviction, the entire case is reopened – allowing the court to review all aspects and even impose a higher penalty.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr. and made public May 13, the SC En Banc denied the appeal filed by accused XXX, who was found guilty of attempted rape, instead of unjust vexation, and imposed a heavier penalty.
This ruling abandons the earlier doctrine in People vs. Balunsat, which prohibited a reviewing court from increasing the penalty on appeal to protect the accused from double jeopardy, the SC Office of the Spokesperson said in a press release.
Court records show that, in 2013, the victim, then 16 years old, was sexually violated by her father, XXX, against her will. She was too weak to fight back and unable to make any noise, as he covered her mouth with his hand. He threatened to kill her and other relatives if she told anyone about the incident.
A few weeks later, he attempted to do the same. As he was about to climb on top of her with his genitals exposed, the victim managed to stop him by kneeing him in the stomach, forcing him to leave the room.
When the victim started working in another city, she confided in her brother and grandmother, who then helped her report the incidents to the police.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found XXX guilty of rape for the first incident but convicted him only of unjust vexation for the second. The RTC ruled that he could not be convicted of attempted rape because he stopped himself and left the room before completing the act. He was found guilty of unjust vexation as his actions caused the victim distress.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s ruling.
On appeal, the SC upheld XXX’s conviction for the first incident, finding all the elements of rape present. “Rape under Article 266-A(1)(A) of the Revised Penal Code is committed when a man has sexual intercourse with a woman through force, threat, or intimidation.”
The SC, however, disagreed with the RTC and CA on the second incident, and found XXX guilty of attempted rape, which carries a heavier penalty than unjust vexation. “XXX’s act of trying to mount the victim with his genitals exposed indicates that he intended to rape her but was stopped by the victim’s blow to his stomach.”
The SC acknowledged that, in several earlier decisions, it had limited its review of appeals to avoid violating the accused’s right against double jeopardy, which prohibits a person from being prosecuted or punished more than once for the same offense.
In the 2010 case of People vs. Balunsat (Balunsat), the SC had said it could no longer review the CA’s decision to downgrade the conviction from attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness, as this amounted to an acquittal of the more serious charge. It emphasized that an acquittal is immediately final and cannot be appealed.
In the present case, the SC held that Balunsat was incorrect in invoking the accused’s right against double jeopardy. When the accused appeals a conviction, they waive this right and open the entire case for review – including the possibility of a heavier penalty. In contrast, when it is the State that seeks to challenge an acquittal or request a harsher penalty, the accused may rightfully invoke the protection against double jeopardy.
The reviewing court can correct errors not raised by the appealing party or even reverse the trial court’s decision on entirely different grounds. An appeal gives the reviewing court full jurisdiction over the case, allowing it to examine records, modify the judgment, and increase the penalty.
XXX was sentenced to a maximum of 40 years in prison for rape, and up to 12 years in prison for attempted rape. He was also ordered to pay P300,000 in damages. ||
