Case Summary (G.R. No. 223099)
Facts
AAA, a 12‑year‑old minor, testified to two separate incidents of sexual intercourse with the accused. In the first incident, she stated that the accused followed her, dragged her behind a school, removed her clothing, lay on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina; he threatened to kill her if she revealed the incident. Two months later, the accused allegedly entered AAA’s house through a window at night, undressed both himself and AAA, and again inserted his penis into her vagina while threatening her with death. AAA reported the incidents to her mother, BBB, and was examined at the Municipal Health Office by Dr. CCC, who observed healed and fresh lacerations in the hymen consistent with sexual intercourse. During trial, the defense presented no evidence.
Trial Court Proceedings and Initial Judgment
After trial and arraignment (the accused pleaded not guilty), the RTC initially promulgated a Decision acquitting the accused. On the same day, however, the RTC issued an Order recalling and setting aside that acquittal upon the prosecutor’s manifestation that the court had erroneously omitted from the record an Order showing that AAA did testify (the omission allegedly due to misfiling with another case involving the same accused). The RTC then denied the accused’s motion for reconsideration, reasoning that the initial acquittal was based on incomplete and inaccurate records and therefore contravened the requirement that decisions be based on facts and the law.
RTC Conviction After Recall
After recalling the acquittal, the RTC rendered a Joint Decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and sentenced him, for each count, to reclusion perpetua and to pay moral damages of P50,000.00 per count, plus costs.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA affirmed the RTC’s recall of the acquittal and the subsequent conviction. The CA reasoned that the initial acquittal was founded on an incomplete and inaccurate record (specifically, the unintentional exclusion of the private complainant’s testimony), so the acquittal lacked a factual basis and was therefore null and void. The CA affirmed the conviction and modified the award of damages by ordering legal interest on the moral damages.
Issues Presented on Appeal to the Supreme Court
The primary legal question was whether the RTC could validly recall and set aside a promulgated judgment of acquittal, given the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under the 1987 Constitution. Subsidiary questions included whether the prosecutor’s manifestation justified recall and whether any exception to the finality-of-acquittal rule applied.
Governing Law and Legal Standards Cited
- The 1987 Constitution’s protection against double jeopardy.
- Rule 117, Section 7 (as referenced) and related provisions in the Rules on Criminal Procedure setting forth the requisites for double jeopardy to attach: (1) valid information sufficient in form and substance; (2) a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) arraignment and plea by the accused; and (4) conviction, acquittal or dismissal without the accused’s consent.
- The principle that a judgment of acquittal is final, unappealable, and immediately executory upon promulgation.
- Recognized exceptions to nonapplication of double jeopardy: deprivation of due process resulting in mistrial, or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction under exceptional circumstances (e.g., where the trial was a sham or the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case).
- The proper remedy to challenge an erroneous acquittal is an extraordinary remedy (e.g., petition for certiorari under Rule 65) where grave abuse of discretion that deprives the court of jurisdiction is clearly shown.
- Precedents cited include People v. Laguio, Jr.; Argel v. Judge Pascua; People v. Hon. Asis; Chiok v. People; Villareal v. Aliga — all relied upon in analyzing the finality-of-acquittal doctrine and its exceptions.
Application of Law to the Facts — Double Jeopardy Analysis
All elements for attachment of double jeopardy were present in this case: a valid information for two counts of rape, a court of competent jurisdiction (RTC), arraignment with plea of not guilty, and a judgment of acquittal that was promulgated. Under the controlling rule, promulgation of a judgment of acquittal renders it final and immediately executory; it cannot be withdrawn or modified by the trial court except in narrowly defined circumstances (clerical corrections, clarification of ambiguities in the dispositive portion, or to remedy a travesty of justice such as a mock trial). The exceptions (deprivation of due process/mistrial or grave abuse of discretion rendering the proceeding a sham) were not established: the record showed the prosecution had presented its case and witnesses; there was no showing that the trial was a sham or that the prosecution had been denied the opportunity to be heard. The prosecutor’s late “manifestation” that a court record was incomplete did not establish grave abuse of discretion nor did it constitute the extraordinary remedy required to annul a final acquittal. Re
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 223099)
Factual Background
- Accused-appellant Lino Alejandro y Pimentel was charged with two counts of rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Republic Act No. 8369, allegedly committed against a 12-year old minor identified in the records as AAA.
- During trial, AAA testified to two separate incidents:
- First incident: Accused followed AAA, grabbed her, led her to the back of a school, removed her shorts and t-shirt, lay on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina; accused threatened to kill her if she told anyone.
- Second incident (two months later): Accused entered AAA’s house through a window at night, undressed both himself and AAA, and inserted his penis into her vagina; accused again threatened to kill her if she revealed the incidents.
- AAA eventually informed her mother, BBB, who brought her to the Municipal Health Office. Dr. CCC examined AAA and testified to finding deep, healed, old and superficial lacerations in the hymen, which she concluded indicated positive sexual intercourse.
- Accused-appellant, through counsel, manifested in open court that he would no longer present any evidence for the defense and submitted the case for decision.
Trial Court Proceedings and Initial Errors
- On July 26, 2011, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cauayan City, Isabela, Branch 20 promulgated a Decision acquitting the accused-appellant.
- On the same day, the RTC recalled that Decision and issued an Order explaining that, upon manifestation by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Roderick Cruz, the Court discovered orders inadvertently placed in the record of a different criminal case (Crim. Case No. Br. 20-4979) involving the same accused but a different private complainant, which resulted in an erroneous belief that the private complainant AAA did not testify.
- The RTC Order stated that the Order dated September 24, 2007, showed that private complainant-victim AAA actually testified in Court, and to rectify the error and prevent a miscarriage of justice, the Court recalled and set aside the acquittal.
RTC Reconsideration, Joint Decision and Sentencing
- The RTC denied the accused-appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration filed the same day, explaining that the acquittal was based on the erroneous conclusion that AAA did not testify due to a mistaken attachment of the September 3, 2008 Order to another criminal case captioned against the same accused with a different complainant.
- The RTC emphasized Section 14, Article 8 of the 1997 Constitution requiring that decisions be based on facts and the law and concluded that the judgment of acquittal contravened law and facts and was invalid.
- The RTC then rendered a Joint Decision, dated July 26, 2011, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Simple Rape:
- The RTC sentenced the accused in each count to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
- The RTC ordered indemnification and moral damages to AAA in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for each count, and costs to be paid by the accused.
- The Joint Decision identified the felony as Simple Rape under Article 266-A paragraph (D) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 8353, as stated in the disposition.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals and Its Ruling
- Accused-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), contending that the RTC gravely erred in recalling its acquittal and that the conviction was rendered despite the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that the recall of the acquittal was proper because the prosecutor’s manifestation filed the same day apprised the RTC that AAA had actually testified and that her testimony, if considered, would lead to a different verdict; the OSG argued that the manifestation did not constitute presentation of additional evidence nor did it seek a second trier of facts in violation of double jeopardy.
- The CA dismissed the appeal and sustained the RTC’s recall and conviction, reasoning:
- The initial RTC decision acquitting the accused failed to clearly and distinctly express the facts because the records were incomplete and inaccurate due to the unintentional exclusion of the private complainant’s testimony.
- Judges are expected to make complete findings of fact; the acquittal lacked factual basis, was null and void, and therefore was properly recalled and set aside.
- The CA affirmed the conviction and modified the award of damages by ordering legal interest on moral damages at six percent (6%) per annum from finality until fully paid.
Petition for Review to the Supreme Court and Contentions
- Accused-appellant petitioned for review, arguing that:
- The RTC had no authority to recall a promulgated and final judgment of acquittal without violating the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
- The prosecutor’s manifestation was equivalent to a motion for reconsideration and could not serve to invalidate a final acquittal.
- AAA’s testimony was incredible and insufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
- The OSG reiterated its position that the recall did not result in double jeopardy because the manifestation pointed out an oversight and did not present additional evidence; it argued that double jeopardy is pro