Case Summary (G.R. No. 80838)
Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner: Eleuterio C. Perez, acquitted of Consented Abduction but thereafter charged with Qualified Seduction.
Respondents: Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines.
Key Dates
- October 21, 1974: Complaint for Consented Abduction filed.
- June 28, 1980: Trial court conviction.
- October 29, 1982: Court of Appeals acquittal.
- July 22, 1983: Complaint for Qualified Seduction filed.
- April–June 1984: MTC denies motions to quash and for reconsideration.
- December 16, 1985: Intermediate Appellate Court dismisses Supreme Court petition.
- May 18, 1987: RTC dismisses certiorari and prohibition.
- October 8, 1987: Court of Appeals denies petition for review.
- November 29, 1988: Supreme Court decision.
Procedural History
- After acquittal on Consented Abduction, Mendoza filed a new complaint for Qualified Seduction.
- Perez’s motions to quash in the MTC were denied.
- He sought certiorari and prohibition from the Supreme Court; the case was referred to the IAC, which directed refiling in the RTC.
- The RTC dismissed his petition; Perez then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which denied it as improper and final for failure to file a notice of appeal.
Issues
- Whether Perez invoked the proper remedy after denial of his motions to quash.
- Whether the second prosecution is barred by double jeopardy.
- Whether Mendoza’s conduct constituted waiver, estoppel, or pardon.
I. Procedural Remedy and Due Process
- An interlocutory order denying a motion to quash is not appealable; the accused must plead and, if convicted, raise the issue on appeal (pre-1985 Rule 117, Sec. 1).
- Perez’s resort to certiorari and prohibition in the RTC was an original special action under Rule 65, not a continuation of the criminal case.
- Under the 1983 Interim Rules, appeal from an RTC decision requires a notice of appeal within 15 days; failure rendered the decision final and executory.
- The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for review; Perez was never deprived of due process, as he was told to refile in the proper court.
II. Double Jeopardy
- 1973 Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 22 and Rule 117, Sec. 7 bar reprosecution for the “same offense.”
- Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction, though factually linked, have distinct elements:
• Consented Abduction: taking away with consent after solicitation or cajolery, with lewd designs.
• Qualified Seduction: sexual intercourse by abuse of authority, confidence, or relationship. - Each offense requires proof of an ele
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 80838)
Procedural History
- October 21, 1974: Yolanda Mendoza filed a criminal complaint for Consented Abduction (Criminal Case No. 618, CFI Pampanga Branch VI).
- Perez pleaded not guilty; trial on the merits ensued.
- June 28, 1980: Judgment of conviction rendered against Perez.
- October 29, 1982: Court of Appeals reversed and acquitted Perez of Consented Abduction, noting seduction rather than abduction.
- July 22, 1983: Mendoza filed a new complaint for Qualified Seduction (MTCC Pampanga Branch IV, Criminal Case No. 83-8228).
- Perez moved to quash on double jeopardy and waiver/estoppel grounds; motion and reconsideration were denied.
- August 8, 1984: Supreme Court referred Perez’s certiorari and prohibition petition (G.R. No. 68122) to the Intermediate Appellate Court for lack of jurisdiction under BP 129.
- December 16, 1985: Intermediate Appellate Court dismissed the petition, directing Perez to file in the proper Regional Trial Court.
- Perez lodged certiorari and prohibition with RTC Pampanga (Special Civil Case No. 7623); petition and reconsideration were dismissed.
- October 8, 1987: Court of Appeals denied Perez’s petition for review as an inappropriate remedy; noted the decision below had become final and executory.
- November 12, 1987: Court of Appeals denied motion for reconsideration.
- November 29, 1988: Supreme Court resolved G.R. No. 80838.
Factual Background
- Perez met Mendoza and, promising marriage, obtained her consent for sexual intercourse on one night, which occurred twice.
- Court of Appeals held that Perez’s promises were merely a device for seduction, not abduction.
- Upon acquittal for Consented Abduction, Mendoza pursued a separate charge for Qualified Seduction.
Issues Presented
- Whether Perez’s filing in the Regional Trial Court was an appeal or an original certiorari and prohibition petition.
- Whether