DIGEST/ ANA CHRISTEL ANGELES/ PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. LINO ALEJANDRO y PIMENTEL, Accused-Appellant/ 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. LINO ALEJANDRO y PIMENTEL, Accused-Appellant

January 11, 2018 G.R. No. 223099

FACTS:

Accused-appellant was charged with two counts of rape, defined and penalized under the RPC of 12-year old minor.

During trial, AAA testified that accused-appellant followed her, grabbed her, and brought her to the back of a school. There, accused-appellant removed AAA's shorts and t-shirt, laid on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina.

AAA eventually told her mother, BBB, about the incident. BBB brought her to the Municipal Health Office where she was examined by Dr. CCC. Dr. CCC testified that she found, among others, deep, healed, old and superficial lacerations in the hymen of AAA and concluded that these indicated positive sexual intercourse.

Accused-appellant, through his counsel, manifested in open court that he would no longer present any evidence for the defense and submitted the case for decision.

On July 26, 2011, the RTC promulgated a Decision acquitting the accused-appellant on the ground that private complainant AAA did not testify when in truth and in fact said private complainant took the witness stand as evidenced by the Order dated September 3, 2008. On the same day, however, the RTC recalled the said decision and issued an Order, stating that the Order dated September 3, 2008 was erroneously attached by the Court employee to the records of another criminal case involving the same accused but different private complainant-victim entitled People of the Philippines versus Lino Alejandro. This was manifested by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Roderick Cruz. 

            Accused-appellant 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Motion for Reconsideration  arguing that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and can neither be withdrawn nor modified, because to do so would place an accused-appellant in double jeopardy. The RTC denied the motion.

Accused-appellant appealed to the CA, contending that the RTC gravely erred in recalling its previously promulgated decision acquitting the accused-appellant; and for convicting the accused-appellant despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE:

Whether a mere manifestation will suffice in assailing a judgment of acquittal.

RULING:

No. A mere manifestation will not suffice in assailing a judgment of acquittal.

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules should have been filed. A judgment of acquittal may only be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules. If the petition, regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary review of the findings of the court a quo, the constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy would be violated. As a general rule, we adhere to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine in our jurisdiction, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. 

        In People v. Laguio, Jr., this Court stated that the only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion, thus:

x x x The only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham. However, while certiorari may be availed of to correct an erroneous acquittal, the petitioner in such an extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.

In this case, the acquittal was not even questioned on the basis of grave abuse of discretion. It was only through a supposed mere manifestation of the prosecutor, a copy of which was not in the records, that the RTC was apprised of the supposed mistake it committed.

Consequently, the RTC issued an Order recalling the judgment of acquittal for the purpose of rectifying its error, and thereafter, rendered a Decision convicting the accused-appellant for two counts of rape. This, however, cannot be countenanced for a contrary ruling would transgress the accused-appellant's constitutionally-enshrined right against double jeopardy. Hence, the accused-appellant is acquitted.