Geroche vs. People GR No.

179080 November
26, 2014

HELD:
(1) NO, it does not amount to double jeopardy.

Ponente: Peralta, J.
FACTS:
On the evening of May 14, 1989, Baleriano Limbag
awoke when Edigardo Geroche, Roberto Garde,
and Generoso Marfil suddenly entered into his
house and, without a search warrant, began
scouring the place for firearms, but instead food
and took away his airgun. Limbag also sustained
injuries as a result of the raid.
Edigardo Geroche, Roberto Garde, and Generoso
Marfil were all charged with the crime of Violation of
Domicile, under Article 128 of the Revised Penal
Code, and Less Serious Physical Injuries under
Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the abovementioned accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of Less Serious Physical Injuries, but acquitted
them of the crime of Violation of Domicile because,
according to the trial court, the prosecution failed to
prove that the petitioners were public officers,
which is an essential element of the crime.
The petitioners then appealed their case to the
Court of Appeals (CA), praying that the decision of
the lower court be reversed. The CA, however,
ruled that the petitioners should not be convicted of
the crime of Less Serious Physical Injuries but,
rather, Violation of Domicile, considering their
judicial admissions that they were the barangay
captain and part of the Citizen Armed Forces
Geographical Unit (CAFGU).
ISSUE/S:
(1) Whether or not the CAs conviction
amounts to double jeopardy.
(2) Whether or not the petitioners are guilty
of Violation of Domicile.

The Court explained that an appeal in a criminal

case opens the entire case for review to the
appellate court. As such, the accused waives the
constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy,
and gives jurisdiction to the courts to examine the
records of the case, and impose the proper penalty,
even if this means increasing the penalty previously
imposed. It is the duty of the appellate courts to
correct the errors that they may find in the assailed
judgment.
That being the case, the petitioners could not have
been placed in double jeopardy when the CA set
aside the original ruling of the trial court, and
instead found them guilty of Violation of Domicile
(2) YES, the petitioners are guilty of Violation of
Domicile.
One of the essential elements of the crime of
Violation of Domicile is that the accused be a public
officer or employee.
In the present case, the Court adopted the findings
of fact and conclusions of law of the CA. In their
testimonies and pleadings, Geroche did not deny
that he was the barangay captain. Likewise, Garde
and Marfil did not refute the fact that they were
CAFGU members. By virtue of their positions, they
are considered to be public officers or employees.
Hence, they can be found guilty of Violation of
Domicile, as all the elements for the crime are met.
(The Court modified the penalty imposed by the CA
in their decision. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the Court sentenced the petitioners
to suffer the indeterminate penalty from two years
and four months of prision correccional, as
minimum, to four years, nine months, and ten days
of prision correccional, as maximum.)