Case Summary (G.R. No. 80838)
Key Dates
- October 21, 1974: Complaint for Consented Abduction filed by Yolanda Mendoza (Criminal Case No. 618, CFI Pampanga, Branch VI).
- June 28, 1980: Judgment of conviction against Perez in that case.
- October 29, 1982: Court of Appeals reversed and acquitted Perez (noting that the facts amounted to seduction rather than abduction).
- July 22, 1983: New complaint for Qualified Seduction filed (Criminal Case No. 83-8228, Municipal Trial Court of Pampanga, Branch IV).
- 1984–1987: Series of motions, special civil actions, referrals and dismissals culminating in the Court of Appeals decision denying petitioner’s petition for review (October 8, 1987) and denial of reconsideration (November 12, 1987).
- Supreme Court decision reviewing the CA ruling: petition denied and CA decision affirmed.
Applicable Law and Procedural Rules
- Constitutional protection against double jeopardy: provisions cited in the decision include Article IV, Sec. 22 of the 1973 Constitution and Article III, Sec. 21 of the 1987 Constitution.
- Rule 117 (Rules on Criminal Procedure prior to its 1985 amendment and the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure) — specifically the provision on former conviction or acquittal and double jeopardy (Sec. 7).
- Rule 65, Sections 1–2 (special civil actions for certiorari and prohibition).
- Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (jurisdictional changes and authority to issue writs).
- 1983 Interim Rules of Court (appeal periods and manner of appeal; fifteen-day appeal period; notice of appeal requirements).
- Relevant substantive provisions of the Revised Penal Code as referenced: Articles on Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction (Articles 342 and 337), and prescription rules (Article 90 par. 3 and Article 24).
Procedural History (concise sequence)
- Perez was tried and convicted for Consented Abduction; the conviction was reversed and he was acquitted by the Court of Appeals.
- Mendoza subsequently filed an information for Qualified Seduction. Perez moved to quash on grounds including double jeopardy and waiver/estoppel; motions were denied by the municipal trial court.
- Perez filed certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court; the matter was referred to and then dismissed by the Intermediate Appellate Court, which advised refiling in the proper Regional Trial Court.
- Perez filed the special civil action for certiorari and prohibition in the Regional Trial Court; the RTC dismissed it. Perez sought review in the Court of Appeals by petition for review, which the CA denied as inappropriate and, independently, found the RTC decision final and executory for failure to perfect an appeal by notice of appeal within the prescribed 15-day period. Perez’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied, and Perez sought review before the Supreme Court.
Issue 1 — Procedural: Was the remedy pursued by petitioner proper and was he denied due process?
The Court examined whether Perez’s filing in the Regional Trial Court was an appeal from the municipal court’s denial of his motions to quash or an original special civil action for certiorari and prohibition. The Court reiterated the established rule that an order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory and not appealable; under the procedural rules prevailing prior to the 1985 amendment, the defendant ordinarily should plead and, if convicted, raise the matter on appeal. The record, however, showed that Perez filed a special civil action (praying for annulment of the municipal judge’s resolutions and for prohibition), which is an original remedy independent of the criminal trial. Special civil actions for certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to challenge acts by tribunals acting without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and such writs may be issued by the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Regional Trial Courts under the constitutional and statutory provisions cited.
From a denial of a petition for certiorari and prohibition by the RTC, the ordinary remedy is an appeal to the Court of Appeals by filing a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the decision, within fifteen (15) days under the 1983 Interim Rules of Court. Perez did not file a notice of appeal with the RTC; instead he sought review by a petition for review in the Court of Appeals, which was inappropriate. The CA thus correctly held that the RTC decision became final and executory for failure to perfect the appeal, and that compliance with appellate procedure (manner and period) is mandatory and jurisdictional. The Court also rejected Perez’s due process claim: the Intermediate Appellate Court had dismissed his original petition without prejudice and instructed refiling in the proper R TC; thus Perez was not foreclosed from pursuing his remedies but had to comply with the proper procedures.
Issue 2 — Substantive: Double Jeopardy (Was the subsequent prosecution for Qualified Seduction barred by the prior acquittal for Consented Abduction?)
The constitutional and procedural bar against double jeopardy prevents a person from being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. The determinative test is whether the two prosecutions charge the "same offense" — meaning identical offenses or offenses where one necessarily includes the other. The Court applied the settled legal principle that a single act may constitute offenses under two different statutory provisions and that an acquittal or conviction under one does not preclude prosecution under the other if each statutory offense requires proof of an additional element not required by the other.
The Court compared the elements of Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction:
- Common elements: the offended party is a virgin and is over twelve but under eighteen years of age.
- Elements unique to Consented Abduction: (1) the taking away of the offended party with her consent after solicitation or cajolery, and (2) the taking away being done with lewd designs. The gravamen is the alarm and perturbance to the parents or guardians and the infringement of parental or guardian rights.
- Elements unique to Qualified Seduction: (1) commission by abuse of authority, confidence, or relationship, and (2) that the offender has sexual intercourse with the woman. The gravamen is the wrong done to the young woman herself.
Because each offense contains elements that the other does not, they are legally distinct; thus the prior acquittal for Consented Abduction did not bar prosecution for Qualified Seduction. The Court applied controlling precedents and doctrinal statements to conclude that the double jeopardy plea is without merit.
Issue 3 — Waiver, Estoppel, Pardon and Prescription
The Court addressed petitioner’s claims that Mendoza’s prior choice to characterize the case as Consented
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 80838)
Facts of the Case
- Complainant Yolanda Mendoza filed a criminal complaint for Consented Abduction against Eleuterio C. Perez on October 21, 1974, docketed as Criminal Case No. 618, Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Branch VI.
- Perez pleaded not guilty and went to trial. A judgment of conviction was rendered against him on June 28, 1980.
- On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Perez was reversed and acquitted of Consented Abduction; the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision on October 29, 1982, noting that Perez had sexual intercourse with the complainant after promises of marriage and that the acts amounted to “seduction and not abduction.”
- Subsequent to that acquittal, Yolanda Mendoza filed a new criminal complaint against Perez for Qualified Seduction on July 22, 1983, docketed as Criminal Case No. 83-8228 before the Municipal Trial Court of Pampanga, Branch IV.
- Perez filed a motion to quash the new information invoking double jeopardy and alleging waiver and/or estoppel on the part of the complainant; his motion to quash and motion for reconsideration were denied by the municipal trial judge.
- Perez filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 68122). On August 8, 1984 the Supreme Court referred the case to the Intermediate Appellate Court.
- The Intermediate Appellate Court dismissed the petition on December 16, 1985, “without prejudice to its refiling in the proper Regional Trial Court,” explaining jurisdictional limits under BP 129 and Rule 65.
- Perez filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga (Special Civil Case No. 7623); the RTC dismissed the petition and his motion for reconsideration.
- Perez then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. On October 8, 1987 the Court of Appeals denied the petition as inappropriate and held that the RTC decision had become final and executory because Perez failed to file a notice of appeal with the RTC; the CA’s resolution denying reconsideration was dated November 12, 1987.
- Perez’s petition for review to the Supreme Court challenges the Court of Appeals’ denial and raises procedural and substantive issues, including alleged violation of double jeopardy, waiver/estoppel by the complainant, denial of due process, and questions on proper procedural remedies.
Procedural History and Movements Between Courts
- October 21, 1974: Initial complaint for Consented Abduction filed (Crim. Case No. 618, CFI Pampanga).
- June 28, 1980: Conviction of Perez in trial court.
- October 29, 1982: Court of Appeals reverses and acquits Perez of Consented Abduction.
- July 22, 1983: New complaint for Qualified Seduction filed (Crim. Case No. 83-8228, MTC Pampanga).
- 1984: Municipal trial court denies Perez’s motion to quash and motion for reconsideration.
- Perez files certiorari/prohibition with Supreme Court (G.R. No. 68122); on August 8, 1984, Supreme Court refers matter to Intermediate Appellate Court.
- December 16, 1985: Intermediate Appellate Court dismisses petition, advising refiling in proper RTC.
- Perez files certiorari/prohibition with RTC (Special Civil Case No. 7623); RTC dismisses petition and motion for reconsideration.
- Perez files petition for review with Court of Appeals; CA denies the petition on October 8, 1987, and motion for reconsideration on November 12, 1987.
- Perez elevates matter to the Supreme Court by way of the present petition for review (G.R. No. 80838), culminating in the November 29, 1988 decision by Justice Cortes.
Legal Questions Presented
- Was Perez’s prosecution for Qualified Seduction after his acquittal for Consented Abduction barred by the constitutional and procedural protection against double jeopardy?
- Was the filing of a petition for certiorari and prohibition the proper remedy from the municipal trial court’s denial of the motion to quash and motion for reconsideration, or should Perez have pursued an appeal?
- Did the respondent Court of Appeals’ handling of the procedural path deprive Perez of due process by “tossing” the case among courts and dismissing it on technical grounds?
- Is the second complaint for Qualified Seduction barred by waiver, estoppel, or implied pardon by the offended party given the earlier proceedings and the lapse of time between complaints?
- Were the offenses of Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction identical for purposes of the double jeopardy bar, or were they legally distinct?
Court’s Ruling (Supreme Court) — Disposition
- The petition for review is DENIED.
- The decision of the Court of Appeals denying Perez’s petition for review is AFFIRMED.
- The Supreme Court ruled that double jeopardy did not bar the subsequent prosecution for Qualified Seduction, that the procedural relief sought by Perez was inappropriate in the manner pursued, and that claims of waiver, estoppel, pardon, and denial of due process were unmeritorious.
Reasoning on Procedural Remedies: Appeal vs. Certiorari/Prohibition
- The Court reiterated the well-established rule that an appeal