Case Digest (G.R. No. 147079) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In People of the Philippines and AAA vs. Court of Appeals, 21st Division, Raymund Carampatana, Joefhel Oporto, and Moises Alquizola (G.R. No. 183652, February 25, 2015), AAA, a 16-year-old minor, attended her high school graduation on March 25, 2004, in Maranding, Lala, Lanao del Norte. Later that evening, she joined Christian John Lim, Joefhel Oporto, Raymund Carampatana, and others for dinner and a drinking session at Alsonas Palace. Despite her initial refusal, AAA was allegedly forced to consume multiple shots of Emperador Brandy until she became dizzy and unconscious. She was then carried to Alquizola Lodging House, where Carampatana and Oporto allegedly took turns in raping her “against her will and consent” while Alquizola kissed her. AAA regained consciousness at intervals, resisted the assault, and later discovered sperm in her vaginal smear and hymenal laceration upon medical examination at Kapatagan District Hospital. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kapatagan, Branc Case Digest (G.R. No. 147079) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Charges
- On June 23, 2004, AAA (a 16-year-old minor) filed a Second Amended Information charging Raymund Carampatana, Joefhel Oporto, Moises Alquizola, and others with rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code for acts committed on March 25–26, 2004, in Lala, Lanao del Norte.
- The Information alleged that the accused conspired to intoxicate AAA with Emperador Brandy, brought her to a lodging house, and had carnal knowledge of her against her will.
- Trial and Appeals
- RTC of Kapatagan, Branch 21 (Feb. 28, 2006) convicted Carampatana and Oporto of rape and Alquizola as accomplice; acquitted five co-accused for lack of proof.
- Court of Appeals (CA) 21st Division (June 6, 2008) reversed and acquitted Carampatana, Oporto, and Alquizola, finding the victim consented and giving weight to defense testimony and medical findings of an old hymenal laceration.
Issues:
- Procedural Issues
- Whether AAA, as private offended party, may validly invoke Rule 65 certiorari against the CA acquittal without violating double jeopardy or the requirement to file a motion for reconsideration.
- Whether the Solicitor General’s intervention is necessary or whether AAA may proceed in her own name.
- Substantive Issue
- Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by disregarding the prosecution’s evidence and improperly acquitting the respondents.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)