Climate change challenge

THE Philippines is once more at the front door of the rainy season, which puts into sharp focus yet again the challenge of climate change in this basically agricultural economy of 114 million people.

case for the failure of the criminal information to allege “lewd designs” (G.R. L-24447, June 29, 1968).

Despite the inclusion of the allegation “lewd designs” in the criminal information, the accused claimed that it did not cure the jurisdictional infirmity.

The trial court granted the motion and ordered dismissal of the action, causing the prosecution to file an appeal.

The question to be answered was whether the appeal of the Government (through the prosecution) constitutes double jeopardy.

To answer this question, it must be determined whether the dismissal or termination of the original case was with or without the express consent of the defendant.

“[W]hen the case is dismissed with the express consent of the defendant, the dismissal will not be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense; because, [it]… constitutes a waiver of his constitutional right or privilege,… prevent[ing] the court from proceeding to the trial on [its] merits and rendering a judgment of conviction against him” (G.R. L-24447, June 29, 1968).

“In essence, this Court held that where a criminal case is dismissed provisionally not only with the express consent of the accused but even upon the urging of his counsel, there can be no double jeopardy… if the indictment against him is revived by the fiscal” (G.R. L-24447, June 29, 1968). In the case of People v. Alejandro, the accused was charged with two counts of rape of a 12-year old minor, AAA.

After the prosecution presented AAA as witness, accused manifested in open court that he would no longer present any evidence for the defense and submitted the case for decision (G.R. 223099, January 11, 2018).

The Regional Trial Court promulgated a decision acquitting the accused.

On the same day, the RTC recalled the decision upon motion of the prosecution that there were Orders that were inadvertently placed in the record of the case involving the same accused but with a different private complainant-victim. The accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing “that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and can neither be withdrawn nor modified, because to do so would place him in double jeopardy.”

The motion was denied, and the accused was found guilty of two counts of rape.

“What is peculiar in this case is that a judgment of acquittal was rendered based on the mistaken notion that the private complainant failed to testify… allegedly because of the mix-up of orders with a different case involving the same accused-appellant” (G.R. 223099, January 11, 2018).

This, however, does not change the fact that a judgment of acquittal that had been promulgated is final, unappealable, and immediately executory.

“The rule on double jeopardy, however, is not without exceptions, which are: (1) Where there has been deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a mistrial, or (2) Where there has been a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances.” The exceptions are not present because the prosecution was able to present their case and their witnesses.

In the case of People v. Arcega, accused Domingo Arcega was charged and convicted with attempted rape in the RTC of Iriga City.

The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, which modified the judgment of the RTC, finding him guilty of acts of lasciviousness only (G.R. No. 237489, August 27, 2020).

The issue to be resolved was whether the Government may assail the Court of Appeals’ decision modifying the RTC Judgment from attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness.

The Supreme Court, citing People v. Balunsat, declared that “[w]e can no longer review the ‘downgrading’ of the crime by the appellate court without violating the right against double jeopardy, which proscribes an appeal from a judgment of acquittal or for the purpose of increasing the penalty imposed upon the accused”

(G.R. 237489, August 27, 2020).

“(T)he underlying idea,… is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent, he may be found guilty” (G.R. 237489, August 27, 2020 citing People v. Hon. Velasco).

I AM saddened to learn that the iconic Manila Central Post Office Building at the Liwasang Bonifacio in Manila was destroyed by fire last May 21.

Irreplaceable cultural treasure pieces like its collection of rare and vintage postage stamps, and postal souvenirs went up in smoke.

The Post Office Building is an architectural marvel. One writer refers to it as “an enduring legacy of the obiquitous Beaux Arts Movement of the American colonial period.”

Built in 1926 by the American colonial government in the Philippine Islands, the Post Office Building was destroyed in part in 1945 during the Battle for the Liberation of Manila during World War II. Fortunately, it was rebuilt thereafter.

According to the master plan American architect Daniel Burnham designed for early 20th century Manila, the Post Office Building was constructed right beside the south bank of the Pasig River so that mail destined for the provinces could be easily brought to the port area through riverboats.

In the years before commercial aviation, that was the fastest way to deliver the mail.

Estimates peg the damage caused by the fire to around P300-million.

By way of consolation, however, the Government Service Insurance System said the building is insured for P604-million. That ought

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. himself has underlined that “Developed countries have a moral obligation to support adaptation and mitigation efforts of the most vulnerable countries through technology transfer, capacity building, and climate financing, this to address loss and damage, and to achieve necessary breakthroughs for climate action at a global scale.”

His statement was contained in his call last month for unity among 10 ASEAN member states at their 42nd Summit Plenary Session in urging developed countries to fulfill their longstanding commitments to the Paris Agreement.

Sans doubt, the climate crisis poses an existential threat to the world, especially to unguarded countries like the Philippines, and the President was on track in urging the commonality of ASEN states in tackling these shared challenges.

“Although developing countries such as the Philippines only account for less than one percent of global emissions, our countries bear

The climate crisis indeed poses an existential threat to the world, especially to unguarded countries like the Philippines the brunt of the devastating impacts of climate change,” President Marcos said. Weather authorities have said there is a 60 percent chance for a transition from ENSO-neutral to El Niño during May-July 2023, and this will increase to about 70 percent in June-August and

80 percent between July and September. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation is a recurring climate pattern involving changes in the temperature of waters in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.