Today is Saturday, December 10, 2022 + \The LAWPHIL Project | PHILIPPINE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE DATABANK ® Supreme Court Manila FIRST DIVISION anuary 1, 2018 GR No 220009 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Paintt-Appeloe TINO ALEJANDRO y PIMENTEL, Accuses. Appllant DECISION WAM, J “This isan appeal rom the Decision’ dated February 1 7, 2016 ofthe Cou of Appeals (CA) CA-G.R, CRLHC. No 05286, which armed the July 26,2011 Joint Deir” renderd by the Regional al Court (RTC) of Cauayan Cy Isabela, Branch 20 in Criminal Case Nos. Br. 20-5096 & 20-5097, fincing accused-appeliant Lino Alejandro Pimentel gully beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape. ‘Accused-appeliant was charged with two counts of rape, defined and penalized under Ace 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Republic Act No. 8359", of & "2-year old minor, AAA.* Upon araighment, accused-appoliant entered a plea of not guilty and tral ensued During tia, AAA tested that accuses-appelant followed her, grabbed her, and brought her to the back ofa schoo ‘Thera, accused-appeliant removed AAA's shorts and tshir, laid on top of ner, and inserted his penis into her vagina “Two months ler, accused-appellant went inside AAA's house trough @ window one night, undressed himself and 'AAA, and inserted his pen's inside her vagina, On both occasions, accused-appellant threatened to kil AAAI she{old anybody what had happened © [AAA eventually told her mother, BBB, about the incident. BBB brought her tothe Municipal Health Office where she ‘was examined by Dt CCC. Dr. CCC testfed that she found, among olhers, deep, healed, old and superficial lacerations in the hymen of AAA and concluded that these indialed postive sextal inlrcours ‘Accused-appeliant trough his counsel, manifested in open cour that he would no longer present any evidence for the defense and suomited the casa for decision ° On July 28, 2011, the RTC promulgated a Decision acquing the accused-appellant. On tho same day, however, ‘the RTC recalled ihe sad decision and issued an Order, stating: Upon manifestation of Assistant Provincial Praseculor Roderick Cruz that there were Orders that wore inadvertenly placed inthe record of Criminal Case No, Br. 20-4879 involving the same accused but diferent private complainantvictim, XXX, which f considered wil result in a diferent verdict. Tha Order dated September 24, 2007, showed that private complainant-icim, AAA, in te abovel quoted cases, Crim. Case No, 87-20-6096 & 6097, has actually tested in Cour. WHEREFORE, to rectly the error committed and in order to provent the miscarriage of justice, the Decsion promulgated today scquiting the accused is hereby RECALLED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED.” ‘Aceused-appelant filed a Moton for Reconsideration"? arguing that a judgment of acquital s immediately fal anc fexecutory and can nether be withdrawn nor modified, because to do 80 WOUlA place an accused-appellant in double jeopardy, “The RTC denied 12 motion in an Order dated July 25, 2011, explaining is drial, thus ‘Admit, the Court erroneously declared in its Decision that private complainant AAA did not testy in Court When in truth and infact Sad private complainant took the witness stand on September 3, 2008, 2 evidenced by the Order dated Soplomiber 3, 2008 which was mistakenly captioned as Crim. Case No. 4979 instoad of Crim. Cases Nos. Br. 20- 6096 & 6097 and as a result thereot, the Order dated September 3, 2008 was erroneously attached by the Court employee tothe records of another criminal ‘case entitled People of the Philppines versus Lino Alejandro, wherein the private complainant is a ‘arlin 0% Section 14, Article 8 of the 1997 Constitution requires thatthe Decision should be based on facts and the law, The Court beliaves and 0 holds that the Decision contravenes the highest law of the land because it snot in accordance with the law and the facts, and therefore, the judgment of acquittal I invalid. As dispenser of truth and justice, the Court should be candid snough to admit ts error and rectty itself with dispatch to avoid grave miscariage of justcs.”= ‘A Joint Decision” datoe July 26, 201% was rendered by the RTC, finding accused-appellant guity of two counts of| rape and disposed as follows WHEREFORE, finding th accused LINO ALEJANDRO y PIMENTEL guilty beyond reasonable doubt ‘of two (2) courts of Simple Rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A paragraph (D) of theRevised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 8353, he is hereby sentenced to sue, in each Count, the penalty of ralusion perpetua and to indentty the vicim, minor AAA inthe amount of FIFTY ‘THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) and FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as moral damages {or each coun, Costs tobe paid by the accused. ‘50 ORDERED." ‘Accused-appsliant appealed to the CA, contending that the R TC gravely erred in recalling is previously Promulgated decision acquiting the accused-appellant, and for convicting the accused-appellant despite the Prosecutor's failure to prove his quit beyond reasonable doubt.” The Ofice of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that there was no error in the recall of the acquit It Fatiocinated thatthe publc prosecutor's manifestation was fled onthe same day ofthe promulgation of the recalled decision, poining out that AAA actualy testified during the ial and her testimony, if considered, would result in a ‘ferent verdict. The OSG stressed that what was proscribed under the dauble jeopardy clause was the fling of an Appeal to allow the prosecutor to seek a second ter of facts of defendant's guilt ater having failed wih the frst."> ‘The CA dismissed the appeal and held thatthe RTC's Order of recalling and setng aside the judgment of acqutal was justified. I foune that. ‘The inital decision ofthe RTC acquiting the accused falled to express clearly and distinctly the facts of the case, as the records on wich the acquital was based was incomplete and inaccurate. Judges are ‘expected to make complete findings of facts in their decisions, and scnutnze closely the legal aspects ‘of the case in the Ight of the evidence presented. Obviously, withthe unintentional exclusion of the testimony of tne private complainant from the records of the two eriminal cases, the RTC could not have made complete findings of facts in the inital decision, The verdict of acquital had no factual basis. twas null and vod, and should have necessarily been recalled and eet asde."” The CAaffrmed the conviction of accused-appelant and modified the award of damages, a follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the July 26, 2011 Joint Decision of the Regional Tral Court of Cauayan Ciy, Isabela, Branch 20, in Criminal Case Nos. 8. 20- £6096 and 20-5087, finding Liro Alejandro y Pimentel gully beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts fof rape is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION, in that Alejandro i ordered to pay logal intrest on the moral damages award tothe victim atthe rate of si pareent (8%) per annum from the date offal ‘ofthis deesion unt fully pal, 50 ORDERED." Hen, his pein fr review. ‘Accused-appellant argues that despite the RTC's error and misapprehension of fact, Isl had no power to recty Sch mistake as sad acquital had attained finaly afer valid promulgation. The error commited by the RTC cannot be valaly recaled without transgressing the accused-appelant’ right against double jeopardy. He insists that not nly was the decsion of acquitial final ane executor, the manifestation of the pubic prosecutor, which was thecatalyst in having the decision recalled, was equivalent to a motion for reconsideration of the decision. He also points out thatthe CA erred in sustaining the conviction for rape daspite AAA's incredible tstimony."* “The OSG did not submit a supplemental brief and adopted its Appellees Brief before the CA where it stated thatthe recall of te earlier decision ofthe tral cout, by reason ofthe manifestation fled by the public prosecutor, does not factual result in double jeopardy. The OSG maintained that whats proscribed under the double jeopardy clause = {he fling of an appeal that would allow the prosecitorto seek a second ter of fact af defendants guik ater having faled withthe frst. I stressed that here, Ine OSG only manifested tnat the court overlooked fac, which if not considered, wil rasult to a great injustee tothe private complainant. I pressed that thero was no double jeopardy because tere was no presentation of addtional evidence to prove or strengthen the State's case, The appeal has ment In our jurisdiction, We adhere to the fnaliy-ot-acquital doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable.”” ‘The 1987 Consttution guarantees the right of the accused against double jeopardy, thus: Section 7, Rule 117 of the 1985 and 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure sticty adhere to the Constitutional proscription against dauble Jeopardy and provide forthe requistes In order for double Jeopardy to altach. For double jeopardy to allach, the folowing slements must concur. (1) a valid Information sufilentn frm ana substance to sustain a conviction of the crime charges: (2) a court of ‘competent jurisdiction 3) ihe accused fas been arraigned and had pleaded: ang (4) the accused was ‘corvited of acquitted or the case was dismissed without his express consent.” Here al the elements were present. There was a vali Information for two counts of rape aver which the RTC had jurisdiction and to which the. accused-appellant enterec a plea of not guity. After the tial, a judgment of acqutal \was thereafter rendered and promulgated on July 25, 2071. What és pecular inthis cage is that a judgment of ‘quia was rendered based on the mistaken noton thatthe private complainant fale to testy, allegealy because tthe mix-up of orders with a diferent case invoWing the same accused-appellant. This, however, does nol charge the fact that a judgment of acquttal had already been promulgated. Indeed, a judgment of acquittal. whether ordered by the tial or the appellate cour, is final, unappealable, and immeciately executory upon its promulgation.” “The rule on double jeopardy, however, i not without exceptions, which are: (1) Where there has been deprvation of due process and where there is a finding of a mista, or (2) Where thore has been a grave abuse of discretion Under exceptional crcumstances. We find that these exceptions do not exist in ths case Here, there was no deprivation of due process or mstal because the record show that Une prosecution was actually able to present theircase and their winesses. ‘A.moro manifestation also will not suffie in assaling a judgment of acquit. A petion for cetera under Rule 65 ofthe Rules shoule have been fled. A judgment of acquittal may onl be assailed In a petition for cortorar under Rule 85 of tho Rules. Ifthe potion, regardless of iis nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary review of tho finding of the court a quo, the constitutional ight ofthe accused against double jeopardy would be Violated * In People v. Laguio, Jr, ® this Cour stated thatthe only instance when double jeopardy wil nat altach is when the RTC actos wih grave abuse of eiscrtion, thusXxx The only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jursdicion, such as whore the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the ral was a sham. However, while cerborar may be availed of fo correct an erroneous acquittal, the pelitoner in such an extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate thal the tial cour lalarly sbused its authory to a point so grave as to deprive it ofits very power to dispense justce.”™ In this case, the acquital was not even questioned on the bass of grave abuse of discretion. It was only thraugh a supposed mere manifestation of the prosecutor, a copy of which was not inthe records, thatthe RTC was aporsed ofthe suppased mistake it committed ‘A similar instance had been ruled upon by this Court in Argel v. Judge Pascua,” where the Judge was sanctioned {for gross ignorance ofthe law for recalling judgment of acquit, thus ‘As slated earlier, complainant was accused of murder in Ctim, Case No, 289841 of the RIC of Vigan, Tacos Sur. On 13 August 1993 judgment was promulgated acquiting him on te ground that there was no witness who posilvely ieatiied him as tne perpetrator of the crime. However after respondents attention was called by te private complainants counsel tothe fact hat there was such a witness and Confirmed by respondent upon rereading her nates, sho issued an Ordor dated 16 August 1993 statng her intention to "revise" the previous judgment of acquittal, branded the same as “uncalled for and “not final and reset tho case for another “rendering of the decision” The reason gwen was thal the Judgment of acquit was cendered without all the facts and creumetances being brought to her allenton, Respondent Judge explained thatthe transcript of stenographic notes of the testimony of eyewitness “Tio Relreta was not allached tothe recores when she wrote her decision, Thus, na Decision dated 9 ‘August 1983, respondent Judge declared herein complainant Miguel Argel gully beyond reasonable ‘doubt of murder on the basis of the eyewitness account of Tito Retota, sentencee complainant Argel to ‘seventeen (17) yeas, four (4) months and one (1) day ofrecusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, and {a pay the her ofthe victim P50,000.00 as cri indemnity and 60,000.00 fr actual damages. In criminal cases, a judgment of acquital is immediately final upon its promulgation. It cannot be ‘acalad for cowracion ar amendment excep in the cases already mentioned nor withdrawn by another ‘order reconsiderng the cmissal of the case since the Inherent oower ofa cour to modly is order or decision does nol extend loa uidgment of acsultal in criminal case, Complainant herain was already acquited of murdr by respondent In a decision promulgated on 13, ‘August 1993. Applying the aforesaled rule, the decision became final and immutable onthe same day. 'AS a member of ne oench who is always admonished to be conversant withthe latest legal and jucclal dovelopments, more so of elementary rules, respondent should have known that she could no longer “revise her decision of acquital without violating not only an elementary rule of procedure but also theCconstiutional proscription against double jeopardy. When 1 Cconstiutes grass ignorance of the law. (Emphasis Ours)" law is so elementary, net fo know it Similarly, inthis case, the RTC was reminded ofthe fact that private complainant AAA tested during the tal, nly ater it had already rendered and promulgated the judgment of acquital. The R TC then realized that had AAA's lestmany been taken inlo accoun, te case would have had a diferent outcome, Consequently, the RTC issued an Order recaling the judgment of acquital forthe purpose of rectfying its error. and thereafer, rendered a Decision convicting the accused-appoliant for two counts of rape. This, however, cant be countenanced for a canary ruling would transgress the accused-appelant's consttationaly-enshrined ight against double jeopardy. WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated February 17, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) n CA-GR. CRH.C. No. 05258, which afimed the July 2, 2011 Joint Decision rendered by the Regional Tal Court (RTC) of Cauayan Cy, Isabela, Branch 20 in Criminal Case Nos. Br. 20-6096 & 20-6007, finding accused ‘appelant Lino, Alejandro y Pimentel guily beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. ‘Accused-appeliant Lino Alejandro y Pimentel is hereby ACQUITTED and is ordered immediately RELEASED from ‘custody, unless he is Being held for another lawful cause. Let a copy ofthis Decision be furnished to the Diector ofthe Bureau of Cortectios, Muntinlupa Cily for immediate implementation, wha is then also directed to repor to ths Court the action he has taken within fve (5) days from Fecapt of ths Decsion ‘SO ORDERED. NOEL GIMENEZ TUAM ‘Associate Justice WE CONCUR: MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO ‘Chief Justice Chairperson TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO DIOSDADO M. PERALTA ‘Associate Justice Associate Justice MARIANO C, DEL CASTILLO ‘Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to the Section 13, ticle Vill of the Constitution, | certify thatthe conclusions in the above Decision had ben reached in consultation before the caso was assigned to the wttar of the opinion ofthe Courts DivisionMARIA LOURDES PA. SERENO Chief Justice Footnotes ‘Designated as additonal Member as per Rafe dated June 28, 2017. * Penned by Associate Justice Raman A. Cruz, and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salaza Femando and Eduardo 8. Perak, Jr roll, pp. 2-12 * Penned by Judge Reymundo L. Aumentado, CA rollo, pp. 16-23. > otherwise known as the "Family Courts Act of 1997" * Pursuant to People w. Cabalquinfo, $83 Phil 703 (2006), th real name and personal circumstances of the vielim, and any ather information tending fo establish of compromise her identi, including those of her immediate family or household members, are nat disclose, "a Sid ata, "haat a * Original Record, p40 “CA roll, p. 79-80. gate a 1a. 9 83-00, “1d, 90 1a. a 64, ia. at 13-114 "id 8130. a, at 134,Rolo, pp. 95.96. 2 Poop v. Hon. Ass, ofa, 43 Phi, 462,489 (2010) 2" Chioky, People, ofa, 774 Phi 230, 287-288 (2075). Vilaroalv Algo, 726 Phil 47, 62 2014). 21, at 64 % 1, at 60. 2 547 Phi, 296 (2007 1, at 315, 27435 Phi 808 (200%). mis, 11612 oo rey