People v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 183652 People and AAA v. Court of Appeals et. al.
February 25, 2015
People of the Philippines and AAA, Court of Appeals, 21st Division, Mindanao Station,
petitioners Raymund Carampatana, Joefhel Oporto, and
Moises Alquizola,
respondents
Peralta, J.
FACTS:
Accused-appellants Carampatana, Oporto and Alquizola were charged with the crime of rape of a 16-year
old girl. The RTC convicted Carampatana and Oporty guilty as prinicpals and Alquizola as an accomplice
while the CA acquitted them of the crime charged, hence, this present appeal.
After attending a graduation dinner party, AAA, together with her friends, went to Alsons Palace for a
drinking session to celebrate their graduation. During such session, they shared their problems with each
other. AAA became emotional and started crying, prompting her to take her first shot of Emperador
Brandy. After consuming more or less five glasses of drinks, she felt dizzy so she laid her head down on
Oportos lap. Oporto then started kissing her head and they would remove her baseball cap. This angered
her so she told them to stop, and simply tried to hide her face with the cap. The group just laughed at her
and still made her drink more. She fell asleep but was woken up so that she could drink the remaining
liquor inside the Brandy bottle. She refused but they insisted so she drank. Again, AAA fell asleep.
When she regained consciousness, she saw that she was already at the Alquizola Lodging House. She
recognized that place because she had been there before. She would thereafter fall back asleep and wake
up again. And during one of the times that she was conscious, she saw Oporto on top of her, kissing her
on different parts of her body, and having intercourse with her. At one point, AAA woke up while
Carampatana was inserting his penis into her private organ. Alquizola then joined and started to kiss her.
For the last time, she fell unconscious.
Private respondents aver that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and that the
prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal because of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
RTC found private respondents Carampatana, Oporto and Alquizola guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of rape. It, however, acquitted Dela Cruz, Rudinas, Roda, Batoctoy, and Villame for failure of
the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
CA reversed the trial court's ruling and, consequently, acquitted private respondents as it gave more
credence to the version of the defense and ruled that AAA consented to the sexual congress.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in acquitting the private respondents.
HELD:
YES, the Court of Appeals erred in acquitting private respondents.
As a general rule, the prosecution cannot appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment rendered in
favor of the defendant in a criminal case. If there is grave abuse of discretion, however, granting petitioners
prayer is not tantamount to putting private respondents in double jeopardy.
The petitioner has sufficiently discharged the burden of proving that the respondent appellate court
committed grave abuse of discretion in acquitting private respondents. It appears that in reaching its
judgment, the CA merely relied on the evidence presented by the defense and utterly disregarded that of
the prosecution. A more careful perusal will reveal that it was simply lifted, if not altogether parroted, from
the testimonies of the accused, especially that of Oporto, Carampatana, and Alquizola. It presented the
G.R. No. 183652 People and AAA v. Court of Appeals et. al. February 25, 2015
private respondents account and allegations as though these were the established facts of the case, which
it later conveniently utilized to support its ruling of acquittal.
The elements of rape are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) such act was
accomplished through force or intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; or when the victim is under twelve years of age. Here, the accused intentionally made AAA
consume hard liquor more than she could handle. They still forced her to drink even when she was already
obviously inebriated. They never denied having sexual intercourse with AAA, but the latter was clearly
deprived of reason or unconscious at the time the private respondents ravished her.
Moreover, Alquizola should not only be deemed as an accomplice but a principal as well by virtue of
conspiracy. As the caretaker of the Alquizola Lodging House, he provided a room so the rape could be
accomplished with ease and furtiveness. He was likewise inside the room, intently watching, while Oporto
and Carampatana sexually abused AAA and did not do anything to stop the bestial acts of his companions.
He even admitted to kissing AAAs lips, breasts, and other parts of her body. Indubitably, there was
conspiracy among Carampatana, Oporto, and Alquizola to sexually abuse AAA. Hence, the act of any one
was the act of all, and each of them, Alquizola including, is equally guilty of the crime of rape.

People v. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 183652 People and AAA v. Court of Appeals et. al.

February 25, 2015

You might also like