2/20/25, 10:12 AM

Despite a previous acquittal, double jeopardy cannot be claimed by an accused when the State is deprived of due process, the Supreme Court has ruled.

In a decision by SC’s First Division, it was stressed that protection from double jeopardy as guaranteed under the 1987 Constitution is not absolute, particularly when an acquittal is rendered without due process.

Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the ruling resulted in the annulment of the acquittal of Manuel T. Ubarra Jr. who had accused lawyer ARnel Paciano D. Casanova, chief executive officer of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority, of failing to respond in a timely manner to Ubarra’s letters.

He alleged that violation of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; Republic Act No. 6713 or the code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees and Presidential Decree No. 807 or the Civil Service Decree were committed.

Ubarra was then vice president of the CJH Development Corporation.

Casanova countered that the letters were not addressed to him but to then-BCDA President General Narciso L. Abaya, who had already responded. He later filed a perjury case against Ubarra.

The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) found Ubarra guilty of perjury, basing much of its ruling on Atty. Casanova’s judicial affidavit. However, when the case was elevated, the RTC acquitted Ubarra, citing the absence of the affidavit in the records it received.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed the acquittal before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC disregarded key evidence and denied the prosecution an opportunity to address the missing affidavit. The CA sided with the OSG, prompting Ubarra to bring the case to the SC, invoking double jeopardy.

The SC upheld the CA’s ruling, emphasizing that Ubarra’s acquittal was premature and issued without a full review of the evidence. The Court reiterated that while acquittals are generally final, exceptions exist, including cases where:

The prosecution is denied the opportunity to present evidence;
The trial is a sham; or
A mistrial occurs.


In this instance, the RTC failed to allow the prosecution to explain or rectify the missing affidavit, despite it having been properly filed and admitted by the MeTC. This procedural lapse violated the State’s right to due process, rendering the judgment of acquittal void.

Reaffirming the need for a fair trial for both the accused and the prosecution, the SC stated:

“Our Constitution protects the right to due process of both the State and the accused in criminal cases. Thus, the guarantee against double jeopardy does not preclude the Court from declaring a judgment of acquittal as void when it has been rendered in violation of the State’s right to be heard and prosecute its case.”

With this ruling, the SC reinforced the principle that due process must be upheld for all parties in the judicial system, ensuring that procedural errors do not compromise the integrity of criminal proceedings.

​