People of the Philippines and AAA v. Court of Appelas 21st Division, Mindanao Station, Raymund Carampatana, Jeofhel Oporto, and Moises Alui!ola ".R. #o. 1$%&'2, (e)ruary 2', 2*1' (AC+S After After attendin- a -raduation dinner party, AAA, to-ether ith her friends, ent to Alson/s Pala0e for a drinin- session to 0ele)rate their -raduation. Durin- su0h session, they shared their pro)lems ith ea0h other. AAA )e0ame emotional and started 0ryin-, promptin- her to tae her rst shot of 3mperador 4randy. After 0onsumin- more or less ve -lasses of drins, she felt di!!y so she laid her head don on Oporto/s lap. Oporto then started issin- her head and they ould remove her )ase)all 0ap. +his an-ered her so she told them to stop, and simply tried to hide her fa0e ith the 0ap. +he -roup 5ust lau-hed at her and still made her drin more. She fell asleep )ut as oen up so that she 0ould drin the remainin- liuor inside the 4randy )ottle. She refused )ut they insisted so she dran. A-ain, AA A fell asleep. 6hen she re-ained 0ons0iousness, she sa that she as already at the Alui!ola 7od-in- 8ouse. She re0o-ni!ed that pla0e )e0ause she had )een there )efore. She ould thereafter fall )a0 asleep and ae up a-ain. And durin- one of the times that she as 0ons0ious, she sa Oporto on top of her, issin- her on di9erent parts of her )ody, and havin- inter0ourse ith her. At one point, AAA oe up hile Carampatana as insertin- his penis into her private or-an. Alui!ola then 5oined and started to iss her. (or the last time, she fell un0ons0ious. A00used:appellants Carampatana, Oporto and Alui!ola ere 0har-ed ith the 0rime of rape of a 1&:year old -irl. +he R+C 0onvi0ted Carampatana and Oporto -uilty as prin0ipals and Alui!ola as an a00ompli0e hile the CA a0uitted them of the 0rime 0har-ed, hen0e, this present appeal, alle-in- that the CA 0ommitted -rave a)use of dis0retion in a0uittin- respondents. Private respondents respondents aver that a 5ud-ment of a0uittal is immediately nal and e;e0utory and that the prose0ution 0annot appeal the a0uittal )e0ause of the 0onstitutional prohi)ition a-ainst dou)le 5eopardy. +he OS" stated the folloinfolloin- error error <+he appellate de0ision of a0uittal is null and void for havin- )een rendered ith -rave a)use of dis0retion amountin- to la0 or e;0ess of 5urisdi0tion, an e;0eption to the prin0iple of dou)le 5eopardy.= >SS?3 Did the Court of Appeals a0t ith -rave a)use of dis0retion in a0uittin- the private respondents@ 837D
3S, the Court of Appeals erred in a0uittin- private respondents. As a -eneral rule, the prose0ution 0annot appeal or )rin- error pro0eedin-s from a 5ud-ment rendered in favor of the defendant in a 0riminal 0ase. +he reason is that a 5ud-ment of a0uittal is immediately nal and e;e0utory, and the prose0ution is )arred from appealin- lest the 0onstitutional prohi)ition a-ainst dou)le 5eopardy )e violated. Despite a0uittal, hoever, either the o9ended party or the a00used may appeal, )ut only ith respe0t to the 0ivil aspe0t of the de0ision. Or, said 5ud-ment of a0uittal may )e assailed throu-h a petition for 0ertiorari under Rule &' of the Rules of Court shoin- that the loer 0ourt, in a0uittin- the a00used, 0ommitted not merely reversi)le errors of 5ud-ment, )ut also e;er0ised -rave a)use of dis0retion amountin- to la0 or e;0ess of 5urisdi0tion, or a denial of due pro0ess, there)y renderin- the assailed 5ud-ment null and void. >f there is -rave a)use of dis0retion, hoever, -rantin- petitioner/s prayer is not tantamount to puttin- private respondents in dou)le 5eopardy. +he petitioner has suB0iently dis0har-ed the )urden of provin- that the respondent appellate 0ourt 0ommitted -rave a)use of dis0retion in a0uittin- private respondents. >t appears that in rea0hin- its 5ud-ment, the CA merely relied on the eviden0e presented )y the defense and utterly disre-arded that of the prose0ution. A more 0areful perusal ill reveal that it as simply lifted, if not alto-ether parroted, from the testimonies of the a00used, espe0ially that of Oporto, Carampatana, and Alui!ola. >t presented the private respondents/ a00ount and alle-ations as thou-h these ere the esta)lished fa0ts of the 0ase, hi0h it later 0onveniently utili!ed to support its rulin- of a0uittal. 683R3(OR3, the Supreme Court held that the assailed CA de0ision )e Reversed and Set Aside and ndin- private respondents -uilty of the 0rime of rape.
