Villareal vs People [G.R No. 151258] Case Digest

 

Villareal vs People

G.R No. 151258

 

Facts:

SC was asked to revisit its decision in the case involving the death of Leonardo Villa  due to fraternity hazing. SC modified the assailed judgments of the CA and found respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The modification had the effect of lowering the criminal liability of Dizon from the crime of homicide, while aggravating the verdict against Tecson et al. from slight physical injuries.

The appealed Judgment in, acquitting Victorino et al., is hereby AFFIRMED. The appealed Judgments dismissing the criminal case filed against Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano, are likewise AFFIRMED. Finally, pursuant to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the Petition in is hereby dismissed, and the criminal case against Artemio Villareal deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED.

Respondents Tecson et al., essentially seek a clarification as to the effect of our Decision insofar as their criminal liability and service of sentence are concerned. According to respondents, they immediately applied for probation after the CA rendered its Decision lowering their criminal liability from the crime of homicide, to slight physical injuries, which carries a probationable sentence. Tecson et al.contend that, as a result, they have already been discharged from their criminal liability and the cases against them closed and terminated.

 

Issue:

Whether or not the completion by Tecson et al. of the terms and conditions of their probation discharged them from their criminal liability.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

The finality of a CA decision will not bar the state from seeking the annulment of the judgment via a Rule 65 petition.

In view thereof, we find that the proper interpretation of Section 7 of Rule 120 must be that it is inapplicable and irrelevant where the court’s jurisdiction is being assailed through a Rule 65 petition. Section 7 of Rule 120 bars the modification of a criminal judgment only if the appeal brought before the court is in the nature of a regular appeal under Rule 41, or an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, and if that appeal would put the accused in double jeopardy. As it is, we find no irregularity in the partial annulment of the CA Decision in spite of its finality, as the judgment therein was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.