DIGEST/ CHARLES ADRIANNE GILAGA/ PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. LINO ALEJANDRO y PIMENTEL, Accused-Appellant

 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
LINO ALEJANDRO y PIMENTEL, Accused-Appellant

 

G.R. No. 223099                                                                     January 11, 2018

 

Facts:

Lino Pimentel was charged with two counts of rape of a 12-year old minor “AAA”. Upon arraignment, Pimentel entered a plea of not guilty and trial ensued.

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.

Two months later, accused-appellant went inside AAA's house through a window one night, undressed himself and AAA, and inserted his penis inside her vagina. On both occasions, accused-appellant threatened to kill AAA if she told anybody what had happened. 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.

The RTC promulgated a Decision acquitting the accused-appellant. On the same day, however, the RTC recalled the said decision and issued an Order, stating:

Upon manifestation of Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Roderick Cruz that there were Orders that were inadvertently placed in the record of Criminal Case No. Br. 20-4979 involving the same accused but different private complainant-victim, XXX, which if considered will result in a different verdict. The Order dated September 24, 2007, showed that private complainant-victim, AAA, in the above quoted cases has actually testified in Court.

WHEREFORE, to rectify the error committed and in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice, the Decision promulgated today acquitting the accused is hereby RECALLED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED.

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Motion for Reconsideration arguing that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and can neither be withdrawn nor modified, because to do so would place an accused-appellant in double jeopardy, which the RTC denied.

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, which the CA affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant.

 

Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellant will be held in double jeopardy due to an error in court decision.

 

Held:

            Yes. In our jurisdiction, we adhere to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable.

The 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of the accused against double jeopardy, thus:

Section 7, Rule 117 of the 1985 and 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure strictly adhere to the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy and provide for the requisites in order for double jeopardy to attach. For double jeopardy to attach, the following elements must concur: (1) a valid information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction of the crime charged; (2) a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and had pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed without his express consent.

 

Here, all the elements were present. There was a valid information for two counts of rape over which the RTC had jurisdiction and to which the accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty. After the trial, a judgment of acquittal was thereafter rendered and promulgated on July 25, 2011. 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. This, however, does not change the fact that a judgment of acquittal had already been promulgated. Indeed, a judgment of acquittal, whether ordered by the trial or the appellate court, is final, unappealable, and immediately executory upon its promulgation.

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. We find that these exceptions do not exist in this case. Here, there was no deprivation of due process or mistrial because the records show that the prosecution was actually able to present their case and their witnesses.

A mere manifestation also 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.

Accused-appellant Lino Alejandro y Pimentel is hereby ACQUITTED and is ordered immediately RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for another lawful cause.