The Supreme Court has reinstated the acquittal of SPO2 Badawi P. Bakal, ruling that his acquittal by the Regional Trial Court can no longer be revisited without placing him twice in jeopardy. The Court granted his Petition for Review on Certiorari and set aside the Court of Appeals rulings that had disturbed the trial court's order.
The Case
The decision recounts events that began with a meeting on July 20, 2009 between the Ampatuans and Mangudadatus at the Department of National Defense (DND) in Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City, where the clans discussed Datu Esmael "Toto" Mangudadatu's desire to run for governorship in Maguindanao. That same evening, Datu Andal Ampatuan, Sr. and his sons gathered at the Century Park Hotel in Manila, where Datu Andal declared that Datu Toto Mangudadatu must be killed because of his determination to run against the Ampatuans for the gubernatorial election.
According to the narration, subsequent meetings were held in November 2009, including one in Datu Andal's farm in Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao, where the plan to kill Datu Toto and his supporters was discussed, along with the setting up of checkpoints during the filing of the Certificate of Candidacy (COC). Several checkpoints were established, including one along Ampatuan National Highway just across the Ampatuan Municipal Hall, which was manned by private respondent SPO2 Badawi Bakal, who placed a roadblock that closed the national highway.
On November 23, 2009, the Mangudadatu family, their friends, and members of the media assembled to accompany Datu Toto's wife, Bai Genalin Mangudadatu, who was tasked to file her husband's COC with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) office in Shariff Aguak. The convoy of unarmed passengers aboard six vehicles departed for Shariff Aguak and was later blocked at checkpoints, with passengers ordered to alight and lie on their bellies before being led to a mountain site in Sitio Masalay.
The Issue
The question before the Court was whether the acquittal of SPO2 Bakal by the Regional Trial Court could be revisited on appeal, or whether doing so would violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
The Ruling
The Court held that regardless of whether it or the Court of Appeals believes SPO2 Bakal should have been convicted of the crime charged, the RTC's Consolidated Partial Decision and Omnibus Order acquitting him can no longer be revisited without putting him twice in jeopardy.
The dispositive portion reads: "ACCORDINGLY, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated June 14, 2021 and the Resolution dated February 21, 2022 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 165655 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Omnibus Order dated March 11, 2020 of Branch 221, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City in Criminal Case Nos. Q-09-162148 to 72, Q-09-162216 to 31, Q-10-162652 to 66, and Q-10-163766 is REINSTATED. Accordingly, SPO2 Badawi P. Bakal is ACQUITTED as accessory to the 57 counts of the crime of murder as charged."
The Court further ordered that entry of judgment be issued immediately.
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 259277
- July 20, 2009 — meeting between the Ampatuans and Mangudadatus at the DND
- About 200 firearms transported from Manila to Davao City the next day
- November 16, 2009 — meeting at Datu Andal's farm in Shariff Aguak
- November 23, 2009 — convoy of unarmed passengers aboard six vehicles departed for Shariff Aguak
- 57 counts of murder
- CA Decision dated June 14, 2021 and Resolution dated February 21, 2022, in CA-G.R. SP No. 165655
- RTC Omnibus Order dated March 11, 2020, Branch 221, Quezon City
The Court's Reasoning
The Court cited its pronouncement in People v. Sandiganbayan (First Div.), which explained that when a defendant has been acquitted of an offense, the State shall not be permitted to make repeated attempts to convict him. The judgment of acquittal, however erroneous, bars further prosecution on any aspect of the count, and consequently bars appellate review of the trial court's error, unless grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction is shown.
The Court noted that during trial, the People, through the prosecution, was able to present and formally offer evidence in support of its case, which the RTC had the opportunity to evaluate, weigh, and consider. There was neither allegation nor proof that the prosecution was denied its day in court, and the allegation of gross misapprehension of facts against the RTC did not sufficiently establish caprice or arbitrariness. As such, there could be no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC that would warrant a reversal of the acquittal.
The Court stated that the circumstances in the case did not demonstrate the sham trial sought to be avoided by the limited exception to the "finality-of-acquittal" rule. Just because the People disagree with how the RTC weighed the prosecution's evidence does not mean that it was deprived of due process, and no party to a litigation has a vested right in a favorable decision.
Source: Supreme Court Third Division decision in G.R. No. 259277, SPO2 Badawi P. Bakal v. People of the Philippines.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.