G.R. No. 147145 - Testate Estate of Abada vs. Abaja

Nilo Leones was charged with three (3) counts of rape and three (3) counts of acts of lasciviousness.
The trial court rendered a decision on February 19, 1997, finding the accused guilty of all charges.

The dispositive portion of the trial court’s decision sentenced Leones as follows:

For the three counts of rape, a penalty of three (3) twenty (20) years and one (1) day of reclusion perpetua.
For the three counts of acts of lasciviousness, three (3) indeterminate sentences ranging from five (5) years minimum to six (6) years maximum each, to be served concurrently.

In addition, the trial court ordered Leones to pay moral damages amounting to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) to the victim and one-half of the costs.

The accused did not appeal the trial court’s decision.
On February 25, 1997, the prosecution filed a notice of appeal challenging the penalties imposed.
Leones commenced serving his sentence on March 11, 1997.

The prosecution asserted that the penalties for the rape counts were not in accordance with R.A. No. 7659 and should be increased to the death penalty.
The prosecution also contended that the penalties for the acts of lasciviousness were erroneous under R.A. No. 7610 and sought their increase to “12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal minimum, as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum.”
The appeal aimed at correcting what the prosecution alleged were errors in the imposition of the sentence.

Section 1, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states that “any party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy.”
The Supreme Court had previously ruled that allowing the prosecution to appeal for an increase in penalty, when the accused did not contest the conviction, would subject the accused to double jeopardy.
The case draws on earlier jurisprudence, including the decision in Heirs of Tito Rillorta v. Hon. Romeo N. Firme, et al., and references the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kepner v. United States for its double jeopardy principles.

The prosecution cited cases such as People v. Olfindo, People v. Godines, and People v. Medina to support the view that an appeal in a criminal proceeding opens the whole case for review, including the penalty.
However, the Court distinguished these cases because, in them, the accused was the appellant, thereby avoiding the issue of double jeopardy.
The ruling emphasized that reopening the case on appeal by the prosecution in the present instance would violate the accused’s right against double jeopardy.

Whether the prosecution is entitled to appeal and increase the penalty imposed by the trial court in a criminal proceeding when the accused did not file an appeal.

Does such an appeal constitute a violation of the accused’s right against double jeopardy as provided under Section 1, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure?
Are errors in sentencing that are purely errors of judgment (and not jurisdictional errors) subject to correction on appeal by the prosecution?