You are on page 1of 1


L-26376; 31 AUG 1966]

Facts: Aurelio Balisacan was charged with homicide in the CFI of Ilocos Norte. Upon
being arraigned, he entered into a plea of guilty. In doing so, he was assisted y
counsel. At his counsel de officio, he was allowed to present evidence and
consequently testified that he stabbed the deceased in self-defense. In addition, he
stated that he surrendered himself voluntarily to the police authorities. On the basis of
the testimony of the accused, he was acquitted. Thus, the prosecution appealed.

Issue: Whether or Not the appeal placed the accused in double jeopardy.

Held: The Supreme Court held that it is settled that the existence of plea is an
essential requisite to double jeopardy. The accused had first entered a plea of guilty
but however testified that he acted in complete self-defense. Said testimony had the
effect of vacating his plea of guilty and the court a quo should have required him
to plead a new charge, or at least direct that a new plea of not guilty be entered for
him. This was not done. Therefore, there has been no standing of plea during the
judgment of acquittal, so there can be no double jeopardy with respect to the appeal