DIGEST/KRIZABEL MARTINEZ/ PEOPLE vs CA, CARAMPATANA, OPORTO AND ALQUIZOLA

(Rule 65) 

G.R. No. 183652               February 25, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and AAA, Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, 21st DIVISION, MINDANAO STATION, RAYMUND CARAMPATANA, JOEFHEL OPORTO, and MOISES ALQUIZOLA, Respondents

FACTS

Accused-appellants Carampatana, Oporto and Alquizola were charged with the crime of rape of a 16-year old girl. The RTC convicted Carampatana and Oporto guilty as principals and Alquizola as an accomplice while the CA acquitted them of the crime charged.

The facts state that after attending a graduation dinner party, AAA, together with her friends, went to Alson’s Palace for a drinking session to celebrate their graduation. During such session, they shared their problems with each other. AAA became emotional and started crying, prompting her to take her first shot of Emperador Brandy. After consuming more or less five glasses of drinks, she felt dizzy so she laid her head down on Oporto’s lap. Oporto then started kissing her head and they would remove her baseball cap. This angered her so she told them to stop, and simply tried to hide her face with the cap. The group just laughed at her and still made her drink more. She fell asleep but was woken up so that she could drink the remaining liquor inside the Brandy bottle. She refused but they insisted so she drank. Again, AAA fell asleep.

When she regained consciousness, she saw that she was already at the Alquizola Lodging House. She recognized that place because she had been there before. She would thereafter fall back asleep and wake up again. And during one of the times that she was conscious, she saw Oporto on top of her, kissing her on different parts of her body, and having intercourse with her. At one point, AAA woke up while Carampatana was inserting his penis into her private organ. Alquizola then joined and started to kiss her. For the last time, she fell unconscious.

Private respondents aver that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory, and that the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal because of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

CA found that the prosecution failed to prove private respondents’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It gave more credence to the version of the defense and ruled that AAA consented to the sexual congress. She was wide awake and aware of what private respondents were doing before the intercourse. She never showed any physical resistance, never shouted for help, and never fought against her alleged ravishers. The appellate court further relied on the medical report which showed the presence of an old hymenal laceration on AAA’s genitalia, giving the impression that she has had some carnal knowledge with a man before.

AAA, through her private counsel, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, questioning the CA Decision which reversed private respondents’ conviction and ardently contending that the same was made with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

 

ISSUE

Whether or not CA abused its discretion in acquitting the private respondents

 

RULING

Yes. The CA abused its discretion in acquitting the private respondents.

As a general rule, the prosecution cannot appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in a criminal case. A judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory, and the prosecution is barred from appealing lest the constitutional prohibition [ Section 21, Article III] against double jeopardy be violated. 

In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or complainant. 

Here, AAA filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, albeit at the instance of her private counsel, primarily imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA when it acquitted private respondents. As the aggrieved party, AAA clearly has the right to bring the action in her name and maintain the criminal prosecution. She has an immense interest in obtaining justice in the case precisely because she is the subject of the violation.

For the writ of certiorari to issue, the respondent court must be shown to have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. An acquittal is considered tainted with grave abuse of discretion when it is shown that the prosecution’s right to due process was violated or that the trial conducted was a sham. 

An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. There is grave abuse of discretion when the disputed act of the lower court goes beyond the limits of discretion thus effecting an injustice.

The Court finds that the petitioner has sufficiently discharged the burden of proving that the respondent appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion in acquitting private respondents. The victim is crying rape, but the accused are saying it was a consensual sexual rendezvous. Thus, the CA’s blatant disregard of material prosecution evidence and outward bias in favor of that of the defense constitutes grave abuse of discretion resulting in violation of petitioner’s right to due process. Moreover, the CA likewise easily swept under the rug the observations of the RTC and made its own flimsy findings to justify its decision of acquittal.