Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Jonathan Honrales

A conviction rendered by a court without jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a bar to further prosecution under the constitutional right against double jeopardy. The requisites of double jeopardy include a valid indictment before a competent court, and where the first jeopardy attached before a court lacking jurisdiction, the requisite of a court of competent jurisdiction is absent, rendering the judgment void and incapable of becoming executory.

Jane Honrales was fatally shot by her husband, respondent Jonathan Honrales, on August 19, 2002. The case involved a dispute over whether respondent should be prosecuted for intentional parricide or the lesser offense of reckless imprudence resulting in parricide, with the prosecution and the heirs of the victim contesting the downgrading of the offense through reinvestigation proceedings before the Department of Justice and the Office of the President.

Jane Honrales was fatally shot by her husband, respondent Jonathan Honrales, on August 19, 2002. On October 28, 2002, Assistant City Prosecutor Bernardino R. Camba recommended the filing of an Information for parricide against respondent. On November 18, 2002, the Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, docketed as Criminal Case No. 02-207976, alleging that respondent, with intent to kill, shot his legal wife with a .45 caliber pistol, inflicting a gunshot wound of the head and neck which caused her death.

Respondent moved to reconsider the October 28, 2002 Resolution and later filed a supplement to his motion. The RTC deferred proceedings but denied the motion to recall the arrest warrant, finding probable cause for its issuance. On May 21, 2003, 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Laura D. Biglang-Awa filed a Motion for Leave to Conduct Reinvestigation in light of an affidavit of one Michelle C. Luna, which respondent argued would belie the statement of the prosecution witness that the shooting was intentional. The RTC granted leave to conduct the reinvestigation.

The heirs of the victim moved for the inhibition of Prosecutor Biglang-Awa, and City Prosecutor Ramon R. Garcia issued Office Order No. 1640 reassigning the case to Assistant City Prosecutor Antonio R. Rebagay. After several hearings, on December 19, 2003, Assistant City Prosecutor Rebagay issued a Resolution setting aside the October 28, 2002 Resolution and recommending the withdrawal of the Information for parricide and the filing of an Information for reckless imprudence resulting in parricide. City Prosecutor Garcia approved the Resolution.

On January 16, 2004, Assistant City Prosecutor Rebagay filed with the RTC a motion to withdraw the Information for parricide. On January 28, 2004, while the Motion to Withdraw Information was still pending, an Information for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Parricide was filed against respondent before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, alleging that respondent, after removing the bullets of the gun in a careless, reckless, negligent and imprudent manner, playfully poked the gun to his maid, son, and wife, accidentally shooting his wife.

Petitioner heirs filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ) questioning the downgrading of the offense and an Opposition to the Motion to Withdraw Information with the RTC. On March 17, 2004, the DOJ dismissed the petitions for review. Petitioner heirs moved for reconsideration, which was denied on May 14, 2004. They again filed a petition for review with the DOJ on June 14, 2004, which was dismissed with finality on July 14, 2004. On August 5, 2004, petitioner heirs appealed to the Office of the President (OP), and the RTC held in abeyance the resolution of the motion to withdraw in deference to the appeal.

In the meantime, on October 11, 2004, respondent was arraigned before the MeTC and pleaded guilty to the charge of reckless imprudence resulting in parricide. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of one (1) year, seven (7) months and eleven (11) days to two (2) years, ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of prision correccional. On October 27, 2004, respondent filed with the RTC a motion seeking to dismiss the parricide charges, citing his arraignment and conviction by the MeTC. Petitioner heirs filed with the MeTC a motion to nullify the proceedings, claiming denial of procedural due process and invalidity of the Information.

On December 6, 2004, the OP dismissed petitioner heirs' appeal, and their motion for reconsideration was denied on April 20, 2005. On June 6, 2005, petitioner heirs filed before the CA an appeal by certiorari under Rule 43 assailing the OP's denial. On June 30, 2005, Judge Soriaso inhibited herself, and the case was re-raffled to Branch 54, presided over by Judge Manuel M. Barrios. On September 26, 2005, Judge Barrios granted the withdrawal of the Information for parricide and recalled the warrant of arrest, ruling that the Information for parricide found itself without a supporting resolution and thus its withdrawal was appropriate. Petitioner heirs' motion for reconsideration was noted without action on November 3, 2005, as it was made without the approval or intervention of the Public Prosecutor.

On January 9, 2006, petitioner heirs filed a petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the September 26, 2005 and November 3, 2005 Orders. The People of the Philippines was impleaded as party respondent upon motion of petitioner heirs and the OSG. On October 1, 2007, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari, finding that Judge Barrios failed to make an independent assessment of the merits of the case and thus abdicated his judicial power, but ruling that remand would serve no useful purpose since it may result in the reopening of the parricide case, which would violate respondent's constitutional right against double jeopardy.

• Lack of Jurisdiction of the MeTC: Petitioner heirs argued that the MeTC did not validly acquire jurisdiction over the case for parricide through reckless imprudence and that jurisdiction remained with the RTC where the Information for parricide was filed.
• Invalidity of the MeTC Proceedings: Petitioner heirs assailed the filing with the MeTC of the Information for the downgraded offense after a supposedly dubious reinvestigation and questioned the hasty arraignment of accused, which was done allegedly without notice to them and without them being furnished with the result of the reinvestigation.
• Non-Establishment of Double Jeopardy: Petitioner heirs argued that when respondent immediately pleaded guilty to the charge for reckless imprudence without notice to them, such a plea cannot be legally invoked in respondent's defense of double jeopardy, especially since the Information for parricide was still pending with the RTC when accused was hastily arraigned for the downgraded offense.
• Retention of Jurisdiction by the RTC: The OSG argued that the MeTC could not have validly acquired jurisdiction over the case for the same offense of parricide or any offense necessarily included therein because the prosecution's motion to withdraw the Information for parricide before the RTC remained unacted upon by the said court.

• Double Jeopardy: Respondent maintained that if the petition is granted, it would violate his right against double jeopardy, as the first jeopardy had already attached because there was a valid indictment, arraignment and plea, and the proceedings were already terminated since he is already serving sentence and has applied for probation.
• Justification for Reinvestigation: Respondent contended that proceeding with reinvestigation was justified since the principal action can continue if there is no order from the appellate court to stop the proceedings.
• Lack of Right to Appeal: Respondent argued that petitioner heirs have no right to file this appeal, especially since the appeal was filed without the public prosecutor's conformity.
• Finality of the MeTC Decision: Respondent contended that it is already too late for petitioner heirs to question the validity of the MeTC proceedings since its decision has become final and executory, no appeal having been taken from the decision, and that petitioner heirs failed to present evidence to prove that there was fraud in the reinvestigation and subsequent plea to a lesser offense.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the withdrawal of the Information for parricide and recalling the warrant of arrest without making an independent assessment of the merits of the case.
• Double Jeopardy: Whether the remand of the parricide case to the trial court will violate respondent's constitutional right against double jeopardy.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Yes. The RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the withdrawal of the Information for parricide and recalling the warrant of arrest without making an independent assessment of the merits of the case and the evidence on record, thereby abdicating its judicial power and refusing to perform a positive duty enjoined by law.
• Double Jeopardy: No. The remand of the parricide case to the RTC will not violate respondent's constitutional right against double jeopardy because the MeTC lacked jurisdiction over the offense, the RTC having retained jurisdiction over the offense to the exclusion of all other courts, and a decision rendered without jurisdiction is not a decision in contemplation of law and can never become executory.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Court found that the RTC, through Judge Barrios, relied solely on the manifestation of the public prosecutor that it was abiding by the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice, without making an independent assessment of the merits of the case and the evidence on record. By doing so, the trial court abdicated its judicial power and refused to perform a positive duty enjoined by law, constituting grave abuse of discretion.

• Double Jeopardy: The Court applied Section 7, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. A first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

The Court held that the MeTC took cognizance of the Information for reckless imprudence resulting in parricide while the criminal case for parricide was still pending before the RTC. Citing Dioquino vs. Cruz, Jr. , the Court held that once jurisdiction is acquired by the court in which the Information is filed, it is there retained. As the offense of reckless imprudence resulting in parricide was included in the charge for intentional parricide pending before the RTC, the MeTC clearly had no jurisdiction over the criminal case filed before it, the RTC having retained jurisdiction over the offense to the exclusion of all other courts. The requisite that the judgment be rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction was therefore absent. A decision rendered without jurisdiction is not a decision in contemplation of law and can never become executory.

• Doctrine of Double Jeopardy — Under Section 7, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. A first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. In this case, the requisite of a court of competent jurisdiction was absent because the MeTC lacked jurisdiction over the offense, the RTC having retained jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.

• Doctrine of Jurisdiction Retention — Once jurisdiction is acquired by the court in which the Information is filed, it is there retained. The RTC acquired jurisdiction over the parricide case upon the filing of the Information, and the MeTC could not validly acquire jurisdiction over the offense of reckless imprudence resulting in parricide, which was necessarily included in the charge for intentional parricide pending before the RTC.

• Doctrine of Void Judgments — A decision rendered without jurisdiction is not a decision in contemplation of law and can never become executory. The MeTC's conviction of respondent was void for lack of jurisdiction and could not be invoked as a bar to further prosecution.

• "Thus, double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. A first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent." — This passage states the canonical formulation of the requisites of double jeopardy and the elements of a first jeopardy attachment, which is the controlling doctrine in this case.

• "In Dioquino v. Cruz, Jr., we held that once jurisdiction is acquired by the court in which the Information is filed, it is there retained. Therefore, as the offense of reckless imprudence resulting in parricide was included in the charge for intentional parricide pending before the RTC, the MeTC clearly had no jurisdiction over the criminal case filed before it, the RTC having retained jurisdiction over the offense to the exclusion of all other courts. The requisite that the judgment be rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is therefore absent." — This passage applies the doctrine of jurisdiction retention to the facts and explains why the MeTC's conviction cannot bar further prosecution.

• "A decision rendered without jurisdiction is not a decision in contemplation of law and can never become executory." — This passage articulates the principle that a void judgment cannot become final and executory, which is the basis for reinstating the parricide case.

• Dioquino vs. Cruz, Jr., Nos. L-38579 & L-39951, September 9, 1982, 116 SCRA 451 — Controlling precedent for the doctrine that once jurisdiction is acquired by the court in which the Information is filed, it is there retained.
• Santos vs. Orda, Jr., G.R. No. 158236, September 1, 2004, 437 SCRA 504 — Cited to support the finding that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the withdrawal of the Information without independent assessment.
• Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113216, September 5, 1997, 278 SCRA 656 — Cited to support the finding of grave abuse of discretion by the trial court.
• People vs. Nazareno, G.R. No. 168982, August 5, 2009, 595 SCRA 438 — Cited for the requisites of double jeopardy.
• People vs. Tampal, G.R. No. 102485, May 22, 1995, 244 SCRA 202 — Cited for the requisites of double jeopardy.
• Magno vs. People, G.R. No. 149725, October 23, 2003, 414 SCRA 246 — Cited for the proposition that reckless imprudence resulting in parricide is included in the charge for intentional parricide.
• Municipality of Antipolo vs. Zapanta, No. L-65334, December 26, 1984, 133 SCRA 820 — Cited for the principle that a decision rendered without jurisdiction is not a decision in contemplation of law and can never become executory.

• Section 7, Rule 117, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides the rule on former conviction or acquittal and double jeopardy, stating that a conviction or acquittal by a court of competent jurisdiction upon a valid complaint or information after the accused had pleaded to the charge shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged. The Court applied this provision to determine whether the MeTC's conviction barred the parricide prosecution, holding that the requisite of a court of competent jurisdiction was absent.
• Section 13, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Cited in the Certification portion of the decision, relating to the certification of the conclusions reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

Conchita Carpio Morales (Chairperson), Arturo D. Brion, Jose Portugal Perez (designated additional member per Raffle of March 8, 2010 in view of the recusal of Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin), and Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno.