Ubarra, Jr. vs. People

A judgment of acquittal is void and can be set aside without violating double jeopardy if it is rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as when the trial court capriciously deprives the State of its right to due process by denying it a fair opportunity to prosecute and present its case.

Petitioner Ubarra filed a complaint-affidavit with the Ombudsman against Atty. Casanova. Subsequently, Atty. Casanova filed a counter-complaint charging Ubarra with perjury for allegedly making false statements in that affidavit. The perjury case proceeded through the courts.

• Filed in MeTC Branch 41, QC; later re-raffled to MeTC Branch 32.
• MeTC convicted Ubarra of perjury.
• Ubarra appealed to the RTC (Branch 92, QC).
• RTC acquitted Ubarra.
• The State (through the OSM) filed a Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) before the CA.
• CA granted the petition, set aside the RTC's acquittal, and remanded the case.
• Ubarra elevated the matter to the SC via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

• Ubarra, as VP for Litigation of CJH Development Corp., filed a verified complaint-affidavit before the Ombudsman against Atty. Casanova (CEO of BCDA).
• The complaint-affidavit referenced letters addressed to other BCDA officials, not to Atty. Casanova.
• BCDA, through Atty. Casanova, filed a perjury complaint against Ubarra.
• An Information for perjury was filed against Ubarra.
• During trial, the prosecution presented Atty. Casanova as a witness, who affirmed his judicial affidavit.
• Ubarra admitted he erroneously included Atty. Casanova in his Ombudsman complaint but claimed it was an unintentional mistake.
• The MeTC convicted Ubarra.
• On appeal, the RTC acquitted Ubarra, primarily because Atty. Casanova's judicial affidavit was missing from the records transmitted from the MeTC, and thus the RTC found no positive identification of Ubarra as the perpetrator.
• The RTC ordered the private prosecutors to explain why they should not be held in contempt for stating the affidavit was filed when it was not in the records.
• The State filed a certiorari petition with the CA, arguing the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion.

• The CA violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy by overturning a final and executory judgment of acquittal.
• Cited People v. Pimentel and Argel v. Judge Pascua to argue that an acquittal cannot be changed even if testimony is not considered.

• The RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to a violation of the State's right to due process.
• The acquittal was based on a grossly incomplete record, as evidence (the judicial affidavit and its annexes) was duly filed and admitted but missing from the transmitted records.
• The State was not given an opportunity to explain the absence or resubmit the evidence before the acquittal was rendered.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues: Whether the CA violated Ubarra's right against double jeopardy when it reversed the RTC's judgment of acquittal.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: No. The CA did not violate double jeopardy. The SC found that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion that resulted in a denial of the State's right to due process. The acquittal was therefore void and could be set aside. The case was remanded to the RTC for proper resolution.

• Exception to Double Jeopardy (Due Process Violation) — The constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy is not absolute. A judgment of acquittal may be assailed via certiorari and set aside if it is rendered with grave abuse of discretion that violates the State's right to due process, rendering the judgment void. This occurs when the prosecution is denied a fair opportunity to present its case, such as when the trial is a sham, there is a mistrial, or the court acts capriciously.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Defined as such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to act at all in contemplation of law.
• State's Right to Due Process — Both the State and the accused are entitled to due process. The State, representing the sovereign people, is entitled to its "day in court" — a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case. A denial of this right ousts the court of jurisdiction.

• "The capricious dismissal of an Information deprives the State of a fair opportunity to prosecute and convict; it denies the prosecution its day in court. Accordingly, it is a dismissal that is void and inexistent, and thus will not constitute a proper basis for the claim of double jeopardy."
• "Where the denial of the fundamental right of due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction... Any judgment or decision rendered notwithstanding such violation may be regarded as a 'lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever it exhibits its head.'" (Citing People v. Bocar)

• People v. Bocar — Cited to illustrate that where the prosecution is deprived of the opportunity to prosecute and prove its case, its due process right is violated, rendering the judgment void.
• Gorion v. RTC of Cebu Branch 17 — Cited where an erroneous dismissal order issued capriciously was set aside without violating double jeopardy because the State's due process was violated.
• Saldana v. Court of Appeals — Cited where a premature termination of the prosecution's evidence deprived it of due process, and remand for further hearing was held not to constitute double jeopardy as the first jeopardy was not terminated.
• Portugal v. Reantaso — Cited where a dismissal for failure to prosecute, when the prosecution was not properly notified of the hearing, was set aside for violating due process.
• People v. Pablo — Cited where an acquittal/dismissal was set aside for grave abuse of discretion when the judge denied a postponement for a vital witness.
• People v. Pimentel & Argel v. Judge Pascua — Distinguished by the SC. In Pimentel, the acquittal was not assailed via certiorari for grave abuse of discretion. In Argel, the judge herself tried to recall her own erroneous acquittal, which is prohibited. The present case involved a proper Rule 65 petition alleging grave abuse of discretion.

• 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 21 — The right against double jeopardy.
• Rules of Court, Rule 65, Section 1 — The remedy of certiorari to correct grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.