G.R. No. L-35101 - Bustamante vs. Maceren

Petitioner Danilo Bustamante was originally accused of murder and faced proceedings before the Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch II.
On December 14, 1970, upon arraignment, Bustamante entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to one (1) year of imprisonment, alongside ancillary orders such as indemnification and cost payment.
The judgment was immediately promulgated on the same day, and a commitment order was issued by Judge Jorge Coquia, resulting in Bustamante’s immediate confinement and commencement of his sentence.

On December 17, 1970, the Provincial Fiscal of Laguna filed a motion for modification of the penalty imposed on petitioner.
On the same day, petitioner, through counsel, filed a motion for the withdrawal of his earlier plea of guilty and waiver of commitment.
On December 21, 1970, Judge Coquia, before his transfer to Manila, issued an order setting aside the original judgment rendered on December 14, 1970, thereby effectively reopening the case.

After the reassignment of the petitioner's case to the sala of Judge Maximo Maceren, Bustamante was rearraigned on February 1, 1971, and he then entered a plea of not guilty.
Judge Maceren held a new trial of the case on its merits, eventually rendering a new judgment on February 28, 1972, which was promulgated on March 17, 1972, sentencing Bustamante to an indeterminate penalty with a range from six (6) years and one day to twelve (12) years and one day.
Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that having already served his one-year sentence under the valid judgment of December 14, 1970, his constitutional right against double jeopardy had been infringed.

The petition for certiorari was filed with the explicit aim of correcting what was seen as a judicial misstep that violated the prohibition against double jeopardy.
The Solicitor General, recognizing that petitioner’s sentence had already been executed, concurred with the argument that reopening the case and imposing a new sentence would subject Bustamante to double jeopardy.
The relief sought involved the nullification of the order by Judge Coquia and the subsequent new trial decision by Judge Maceren, with a concurrent request for the immediate release of the petitioner since he had fully served the original sentence.

Whether the reopening of the case by Judge Coquia and the subsequent new trial before Judge Maceren violated the petitioner’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

The issue centers on the question of whether the petitioner, having already been sentenced and having begun serving that sentence, could be subjected to a second trial and penalty for the same offense.
It also involves the determination of when a judgment becomes final according to the Rules of Court and whether a subsequent modification or reopening is legally permissible.

The appropriate jurisdiction and authority to modify or set aside a judgment that has already been executed.

Whether the trial court, or even any court thereafter, may nullify or reopen a case once the sentence has been partially or totally served under the doctrine of finality and double jeopardy.
Whether the withdrawal of a plea of guilty by the petitioner could be treated as a waiver of his right against double jeopardy.