Title
Perez vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 80838
Decision Date
Nov 29, 1988
Eleuterio Perez acquitted of Consented Abduction faced Qualified Seduction charges; Supreme Court ruled no double jeopardy, upheld procedural errors dismissal.

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

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.