MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed its stance that when an individual convicted of a crime files an appeal, the entire case is subject to review, potentially leading to a more severe penalty.

In a decision released late Tuesday night penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC En Banc overturned a previous doctrine established in People v. Balunsat. 

The high court denied the appeal of XXX, who was initially convicted of unjust vexation by a lower court for a second incident involving the sexual violation of his then 16-year-old daughter in 2013. The SC instead found him guilty of attempted rape for this incident and imposed a heavier sentence.

The case stemmed from two incidents. In the first, XXX sexually violated his daughter against her will, silencing her with a hand over her mouth and threatening her and other relatives if she disclosed the assault. Weeks later, he attempted a similar act but was stopped when the victim kneed him in the stomach.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted XXX of rape for the initial incident but only of unjust vexation for the second, reasoning that he stopped himself before completing the act. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld this ruling.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts regarding the second incident. While upholding the rape conviction for the first incident, the SC found that XXX’s actions in the second incident constituted attempted rape, an offense carrying a greater punishment than unjust vexation. The court stated that his attempt to mount the victim with his genitals exposed clearly indicated an intent to commit rape, which was only thwarted by the victim’s action.

The SC addressed its previous ruling in the 2010 People v. Balunsat case, which had limited the review of appeals to avoid violating the accused’s right against double jeopardy – the principle that prohibits an individual from being tried or punished more than once for the same crime. The Balunsat ruling had stated that a downgraded conviction amounting to an acquittal of a more serious charge could not be reviewed on appeal.

In the current decision, the SC clarified that by filing an appeal, the accused waives their right against double jeopardy, opening the entire case to scrutiny and the possibility of an increased penalty. The court emphasized that this differs from situations where the State appeals an acquittal or seeks a harsher penalty, in which case the accused can invoke the protection against double jeopardy.

The Supreme Court asserted that an appeal grants the reviewing court full jurisdiction to examine the case records, modify the judgment, and even increase the penalty, correcting errors regardless of whether they were raised by the appealing party.

As a result of the SC’s decision, XXX was sentenced to a maximum of 40 years imprisonment for rape and up to 12 years for attempted rape. He was also ordered to pay PHP 300,000 in damages. This ruling signals a potential shift in how appellate courts handle criminal cases initiated by the accused.