Case Summary (G.R. No. 226846)
Summary of Facts
AAA testified to two separate occasions in which the accused-appellant forcibly raped her. In the first incident at the back of a school, he removed her clothing, inserted his penis into her vagina, and threatened to kill her if she spoke. The second instance occurred when he entered her house at night, repeated the act, and again threatened her silence. AAA later informed her mother, BBB, who brought her to the Municipal Health Office. Dr. CCC found healed hymenal lacerations consistent with sexual intercourse.
Regional Trial Court Proceedings
Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued with the presentation of AAA’s testimony and medical evidence. On July 26, 2011, the RTC issued a Decision acquitting the accused-appellant, erroneously stating that AAA had not testified. On the same day, the RTC sua sponte recalled and set aside the acquittal following the prosecutor’s manifestation that AAA’s testimony, mistakenly filed under another criminal case, had been heard and would alter the verdict. A motion for reconsideration by the defense was denied. The RTC then promulgated a Joint Decision convicting the accused-appellant of two counts of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each count and awarding P50,000.00 indemnity and P50,000.00 moral damages per count.
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA dismissed the appeal and upheld the RTC’s recall and conviction. It found that the initial acquittal rested on incomplete and inaccurate records, violating Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that decisions be based on facts and law. The CA held that the verdict of acquittal was null and void for lack of factual basis and that its recall did not contravene double jeopardy, as the prosecutor did not seek a second trier of facts after a failed prosecution but merely corrected the record. The CA modified the award of damages to include six percent legal interest from finality.
Issue on Recall of Acquittal and Double Jeopardy
The Supreme Court examined whether the RTC’s recall of a final judgment of acquittal violated the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. The accused-appellant contended that the acquittal had become immediately final and unappealable upon promulgation, rendering its subsequent withdrawal invalid and exposing him to prohibited successive prosecutions. The OSG argued that double jeopardy attaches only when the State seeks a second trial after a final acquittal, not when a court corrects its own record.
Ruling on Finality and Exceptions to Double Jeopardy
The Court reaffirmed the “finality-of-acquittal” doctrine: a judgment of acquittal is final, unappealable, and immediately executory upon promulgation. Double jeopardy attaches when (1) there is a valid information; (2) a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) arraignment and plea; and (4) a conviction, acquittal, or dismissal without the accused’s consent. Exceptions permitting post-acquittal actions—deprivation of due p
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 226846)
Background
- Appeal from the Court of Appeals Decision dated February 17, 2015 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05256.
- CA had affirmed the RTC of Cauayan City, Isabela, Branch 20 Joint Decision (July 26, 2011) finding accused-appellant guilty of two counts of rape.
- The Supreme Court granted a petition for review on the ground that the recall of an acquittal violated the accused’s right against double jeopardy.
Facts of the Case
- Victim AAA, a 12-year-old minor, suffered two separate rape incidents by accused-appellant Lino Alejandro y Pimentel.
- First incident: accused followed AAA behind a school, forcibly undressed her, lay on top of her, and committed vaginal penetration under threat of death.
- Second incident (two months later): accused entered AAA’s home through a window at night, undressed both, and again committed vaginal penetration under threat.
- AAA later disclosed the assaults to her mother (BBB), who brought her to the Municipal Health Office.
- Dr. CCC found deep, healed and superficial lacerations on AAA’s hymen, confirming sexual intercourse.
Charges and Trial
- Accused-appellant indicted for two counts of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to RA 8369.
- Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty; the prosecution presented AAA and Dr. CCC as witnesses.
- Defense counsel manifested no further evidence and submitted the case for decision.
Initial RTC Decision and Recall
- On July 26, 2011, the RTC promulgated a Decision acquitting the accused.
- That same day, upon the prosecutor’s manifestation that AAA had indeed testified (records mixed with another case, Crim. Case No. 4979), the RTC recalled and set aside its acquittal to “rectify the error” and prevent miscarriage of justice.
- The recalled order noted the September 3, 2008 testimony of AAA and the inadvertent attachment of orders to a different case.
RTC Reconsideration and Conviction
- Accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing finality of acquittal and double jeopardy; the RTC denied it.
- The RTC held the acquittal co