Case Digest (G.R. No. 183652)
Facts:
People of the Philippines and AAA v. Court of Appeals, 21st Division, Mindanao Station, Raymund Carampatana, Joefhel Oporto, and Moises Alquizola, G.R. No. 183652, February 25, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution (the People of the Philippines) and AAA (the private offended party) charged respondents Raymund Carampatana, Joefhel Oporto, Moises Alquizola and several others in a Second Amended Information dated June 23, 2004 with rape committed on the night of March 25–26, 2004 at Alsons Palace and the Alquizola Lodging House in Lala, Lanao del Norte. The Information alleged that the accused forcibly intoxicated AAA (then a minor) and that Carampatana and Oporto took turns having carnal knowledge of her while Alquizola kissed her without consent.
At trial the prosecution presented AAA’s testimony that she was heavily intoxicated, repeatedly lost and regained consciousness, and that when conscious saw Oporto on top of her having intercourse, later Carampatana inserting his penis into her, and Alquizola kissing her; she testified she tried to resist and cried. Medical evidence from Dr. Cyrus Acusta showed an old hymenal laceration and the presence of sperm on a vaginal smear. The accused admitted sexual acts but maintained the intercourse was consensual; their witnesses gave a contrary narrative describing mutual consent and romantic/sexual conduct.
On February 28, 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21, Kapatagan, found Carampatana, Oporto and Alquizola guilty of rape (with varying penalties and damages) and acquitted several co-accused for lack of proof. The RTC credited AAA’s testimony, found the defense’s claim of consent belated and uncorroborated, and concluded that the accused had rendered AAA incapacitated by intoxication.
The Court of Appeals (CA), 21st Division, rendered a decision on June 6, 2008 reversing the RTC and acquitting Carampatana, Oporto and Alquizola for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The CA gave credence to the defense version, emphasized AAA’s alleged lack of physical resistance and the medical finding of an old hymenal laceration, and inferred consent; it also read the mother’s reaction as consistent with discovery of premarital sex rather than rape.
AAA filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on July 29, 2008, alleging the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in acquitting the respondents. The respondents opposed on grounds including double jeopardy and procedural defects; the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a separate comment supporting petitioners and arguing that an acquitt...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the private offended party, AAA, file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to assail the CA’s acquittal without violating the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy?
- Was a prior motion for reconsideration a mandatory prerequisite to filing the Rule 65 petition, or did this case fall within recognized exceptions?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in acquitting the private respondents, thereby warranting r...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)