Geroche, Garde and Marfil vs. People

An accused who appeals from a sentence of conviction waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the entire case open to appellate review, permitting the appellate court to modify the judgment by convicting the accused of the offense originally charged notwithstanding a prior acquittal therefor by the trial court.

On the evening of May 14, 1989, in Sitio New Lantawan, Barangay Greenhills, President Roxas, Cotabato, petitioners Edigardo Geroche (Barangay Captain), Roberto Garde, and Generoso Marfil (both members of the Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit or CAFGU), armed with garand rifles, forcibly entered the house of Baleriano Limbag. They broke down the main door, conducted a search without warrant or consent, mauled Limbag causing physical injuries, and seized his airgun. The incident occurred at approximately 10:00 p.m. while the occupants were sleeping.

• The Incident: At approximately 10:00 p.m. on May 14, 1989, petitioners Edigardo Geroche, Roberto Garde, and Generoso Marfil entered the house of Baleriano Limbag at Sitio New Lantawan, Barangay Greenhills, President Roxas, Cotabato. Geroche served as Barangay Captain while Garde and Marfil were CAFGU members. Armed with garand rifles, they forcibly broke the main door against the will of the occupants, conducted a search without judicial order or consent, mauled Limbag with a rifle butt causing hematoma and abrasions, and seized his airgun.

• Prosecution Evidence: Baleriano Limbag testified that he was roused from sleep when the petitioners destroyed the door and entered without a search warrant. He sustained injuries on his nose, back, and breast. Roberto Limbag, his nephew and co-occupant, corroborated this account. Dr. Antonio Cabrera affirmed that the injuries would heal within seven to ten days. SPO4 Felomino Calfoforo testified regarding the police blotter.

• Defense Evidence: Petitioners denied presence at the scene on May 14, 1989, claiming they were in their respective homes. They alleged that on the previous night (May 13, 1989), they conducted a roving foot patrol with other barangay officials due to cattle rustling incidents and recovered a stolen carabao from three unidentified persons who escaped.

• Judicial Admissions: During trial and in their pleadings, Geroche admitted his position as Barangay Captain, while Garde and Marfil admitted their membership in the CAFGU.

• Double Jeopardy: Petitioners maintained that the Court of Appeals violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy by convicting them of Violation of Domicile after the trial court had expressly acquitted them of that charge and convicted them only of Less Serious Physical Injuries. They argued that the trial court's judgment had become final and executory as to the Violation of Domicile charge, making it res judicata.

• Due Process: Petitioners asserted that the appellate court denied them due process because their appeal was limited to the conviction for Less Serious Physical Injuries; they focused their arguments and defense solely toward acquittal from that crime, not expecting a conviction for the originally charged offense.

• Waiver of Double Jeopardy: Respondent countered that by appealing the judgment of conviction, petitioners waived their right against double jeopardy and opened the entire case for appellate review, authorizing the Court of Appeals to examine the records and render such judgment as law and justice dictate.

• Public Officer Status: Respondent argued that petitioners' judicial admissions established their status as public officers—Geroche as Barangay Captain and Garde and Marfil as CAFGU members—satisfying the element of public office required for Violation of Domicile.

• Double Jeopardy and Scope of Appellate Review: Whether the Court of Appeals could legally convict petitioners of Violation of Domicile after the trial court acquitted them thereof and convicted them of a lesser offense.

• Status as Public Officers: Whether petitioners qualify as public officers or employees under Article 128 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Proper Penalty: Whether the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals correctly applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law and Article 128 of the Revised Penal Code considering the nighttime commission of the offense.

• Double Jeopardy and Scope of Appellate Review: The constitutional protection against double jeopardy was deemed waived when petitioners appealed the trial court's judgment. An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question, including those not raised by the parties. The appellate court possesses jurisdiction to examine records, revise judgments, increase or reduce penalties, and cite the proper provision of penal law. Consequently, the Court of Appeals correctly set aside the trial court's judgment and convicted petitioners of the crime originally charged in the Information.

• Status as Public Officers: Petitioners' status as public officers was established through their judicial admissions. Geroche admitted being a Barangay Captain, while Garde and Marfil admitted being CAFGU members. CAFGU members, created under Executive Order No. 264 to complement regular forces in maintaining peace and order, are provided weapons and authority to detain individuals, thereby qualifying as persons in authority or public officers/employees for purposes of Article 128 of the RPC.

• Proper Penalty: The penalty was modified because the offense was committed at nighttime and the petitioners failed to return the seized airgun immediately. Under the second paragraph of Article 128, the penalty is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (two years, four months and one day to six years). Applying Article 65 of the RPC, this was divided into three equal portions. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximum term was fixed within the medium period (three years, six months and twenty-one days to four years, nine months and ten days). The minimum term was taken from the next lower penalty (arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum, or four months and one day to two years and four months). Accordingly, the indeterminate sentence was fixed from two years and four months of prision correccional as minimum, to four years, nine months and ten days of prision correccional as maximum.

• Waiver of Double Jeopardy by Appeal — When an accused appeals from a sentence of the trial court, he waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court, which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate. The appellate court may look into the entire records to ensure that no fact of weight or substance has been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied.

• Judicial Admissions as Binding — Judicial admissions made by parties in their testimonies or pleadings are conclusive upon them and establish facts without need of further evidence. Admissions made in open court regarding one's status as a public officer bind the admitting party.

• CAFGU Members as Public Officers — Members of the Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU), created pursuant to Executive Order No. 264 to maintain peace and order and respond to threats to national security, are considered persons in authority or public officers/employees for purposes of criminal statutes requiring public officer status.

• Division of Penalty Under Article 65 — Where the penalty prescribed by law is composed of only two periods, Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code requires the division of the time included in the penalty into three equal portions, forming one period of each of the three portions, to determine the minimum, medium, and maximum periods for application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

• "An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question including one not raised by the parties."

• "When an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he or she waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court, which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate."

• "In holding such positions, they are considered as public officers/employees."

• People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Torres, et al., G.R. No. 189850 (2014) — Cited for the doctrine that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review and that the accused waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy by appealing.

• Garces v. People, 554 Phil. 683 (2007) — Cited regarding the jurisdiction of the appellate court to examine records, revise judgments, and increase or reduce penalties.

• People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 201723 (2013) — Cited for the appellate court's authority to look into the entire records to ensure no fact has been overlooked or misapplied.

• People v. Flores, 410 Phil. 578 (2001) — Cited for the proposition that CAFGU members are provided weapons and given authority to detain individuals, establishing their status as persons in authority.

• Article 128, Revised Penal Code (Violation of Domicile) — Defines the crime committed by any public officer or employee who, not being authorized by judicial order, enters any dwelling against the will of the owner, searches papers or effects without consent, or refuses to leave after surreptitious entry. Prescribes prision correccional in its minimum period, or medium and maximum periods if committed at nighttime or if papers/effects not constituting evidence are not returned immediately.

• Article 64, Revised Penal Code — Provides that when there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period.

• Article 65, Revised Penal Code — Mandates that when the penalty prescribed by law is composed of only two periods, the time included in the penalty shall be divided into three equal portions to form the minimum, medium, and maximum periods.

• Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law), as amended — Requires courts to impose an indeterminate sentence where the maximum term is that which could be properly imposed under the RPC considering the circumstances, and the minimum term is within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Francis H. Jardeleza.