The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday said courts can review all aspects of a case and impose a higher penalty when an accused appeals a criminal conviction.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Antonio Kho, Jr., the SC en banc abandoned the earlier doctrine in People v. Balunsat, which prohibited a reviewing court from increasing the
penalty on appeal to protect the accused from double jeopardy.
The High Tribunal noted that previously, it recognized courts’ limited review to avoid violating the accused’s right against double jeopardy, which prohibits a person from being prosecuted or punished more than once for the same offense.
In the present case of People vs. XXX, it held that when the accused appeals a conviction, they waive this right and open the entire case for review —
including the possibility of a heavier penalty.
Additionally, in contrast, when it is the state that seeks to challenge an acquittal or request a harsher penalty, the accused may rightfully invoke the protection against double jeopardy.
The SC said the reviewing court can correct errors not raised by the appealing party or even reverse the trial court’s decision on entirely different grounds.
It further explained that an appeal gives the reviewing court full jurisdiction over the case, allowing it to examine records, modify the judgment, and increase the penalty.