Case Digest (G.R. No. 223844)
Facts:
Petitioner AAA261422, a minor represented by YYY261422, filed a Rule 65 petition after the Regional Trial Court, Branch xxx, acquitted respondent XXX261422 of two counts of rape under Article 266‑A and one count of acts of lasciviousness, but ordered PHP 150,000 in moral damages; the trial court denied reconsideration. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner’s certiorari for lack of legal standing because she did not obtain the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), and denied reconsideration; petitioner then sought relief from the Supreme Court.Issues:
- May a private complainant’s petition for certiorari assailing an acquittal of the accused proceed despite lacking the OSG’s conformity?
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion or deny due process such that its acquittal is void and subject to review?
Ruling:
The Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals’ resolutions, and set aside the trial court’s acquittal. The Court f Case Digest (G.R. No. 223844)
Facts:
- Parties and procedural posture
- AAA261422, a minor, through YYY261422, filed the petition for review on certiorari.
- XXX261422 was the accused and respondent in the criminal cases.
- The petition assailed two Court of Appeals resolutions dated June 25, 2020 and December 22, 2020 dismissing and denying reconsideration of AAA261422's Rule 65 petition for certiorari.
- Criminal informations and plea
- Three Informations were filed against XXX261422: Criminal Case Nos. 21-3964, 21-3965, and 21-3966.
- Criminal Case Nos. 21-3964 and 21-3966 charged rape under Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353; Criminal Case No. 21-3965 charged acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act No. 7610.
- XXX261422 pleaded not guilty and stood trial.
- Allegations of the prosecution
- Victim AAA261422 alleged three separate incidents: December 25, 2017 (early dawn) and the second and third weeks of January 2018; acts included covering her mouth, unzipping her shorts, insertion of finger into her vagina several times, and kissing/sucking her breasts; on one occasion the accused touched his penis to her thigh.
- Victim alleged the accused told her not to tell anyone and threatened to kill her.
- Victim lived with her mother CCC261422 and the accused, whom she identified as her stepfather (common-law partner of her mother).
- On February 28, 2018, Dr. Ava O. Liwanag examined the then 13-year-old victim and recorded a hymenal laceration at the 7:00 o'clock position and an old laceration; medico-legal certificate was offered in evidence.
- Prosecution witnesses: AAA261422, YYY261422, and Dr. Liwanag; exhibits included medico-legal certificate, Certificate of Live Birth, videos, and affidavits.
- Defense case
- Defense witnesses included XXX261422, CCC261422 (the victim's mother), and Ramil Rodriguez.
- Defense theory: allegations were fabricated to separate CCC261422 and XXX261422; accused admitted corporal punishment of children but denied molestation; asserted impossibility due to house proximity and presence of mother.
- Ramil claimed presence in accused's house on December 24–25, 2017 and departure by 3:00 a.m.
- Trial court disposition and post-trial events
- By Joint Decision dated June 18, 2019, the Regional Trial Court, Branch xxx, acquitted XXX261422 in all three cases for reasonable doubt but ordered payment of PHP 150,000 as moral damages to the private complainant.
- Trial court’s acquittal reasoning emphasized possible concoction influenced by the victim's paternal family and the small house setting where noise would have been heard.
- Trial c...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Primary legal question presented
- Whether the petition for certiorari filed by the private complainant AAA261422 to assail the acquittal of XXX261422 may prosper despite the absence of the OSG's conformity.
- Subsidiary factual and legal issues decided
- Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or denial of due process in rendering the acquittal.
- Whether the trial court's judgment was void *ab initio* such that *double jeopardy* did not bar review.
- Whether the evidence proved the elements of rape or lascivious conduct and which statutory provision applied. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)