4. People v.

Balisacan

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 by a counsel. At his de oficio counsel’s petition, however, he was
allowed to present evidence to prove mitigating circumstances. Thereupon the accused testified to the effect that he
stabbed the deceased in self-defense because the latter was strangling him. And he further stated that after the
incident 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 an existence of plea is essential requisite in order that accused may be in jeopardy

RULING: The existence of a plea is an essential requisite to double jeopardy. Where the accused had first entered a
plea of guilty and subsequently he was allowed to testify in order to prove mitigating circumstances and he said that
he acted in complete self-defense, said testimony had the effect of vacating his plea of guilty, and the court should
have required him to plea anew on the charge, or at least it should have directed that a new plea of not guilty be
entered for him. This not having been done, there was no standing plea at the time the court rendered its judgment
of acquital, and it follows that there can be no double jeopardy with respect to the present appeal.