DIGEST/ Banas, Mary Rovytte/ PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee -versus-LINO ALEJANDRO y PIMENTEL, Accused-Appellant G.R. No. 223099 January 11, 2018
FACTS
The accused-appellant Lino Alejandro y Pimentel was charged with two counts of rape of a 12-year-old minor. In AAA’s testimony, the first incident had happened in the back of a school where the accused-appellant followed her and grabbed her there. Two months later from the first incident the accused-appellant went inside AAA's house through a window, undressed himself and AAA, and did the same act. In these two instances, the accused-appellant threatened to kill AAA if she told anybody what had happened.
AAA eventually told her mother, BBB, about the incident. Her mother then brought her to the Municipal Health Office where she was examined by Dr. CCC testified that she found, among others, deep, healed, old, and superficial lacerations in the hymen of AAA and concluded that these indicated positive sexual intercourse.
Accused-appellant, through his counsel, manifested in open court that he would no longer present any evidence for the defense and submitted the case for decision. RTC promulgated a decision acquitting the accused-appellant. On the same day, however, the RTC recalled the said decision and issued an Order stating that upon the manifestation of Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Roderick Cruz, Orders were inadvertently placed in the record of Criminal Case No. Br. 20-4979 involving the same accused but different private complainant-victim, XXX, which will result in a different verdict if considered.
Accused-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and can neither be withdrawn nor modified, because to do so would place an accused-appellant in double jeopardy.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the recall of the judgment of acquittal will held the accused-appellant in double jeopardy?
RULING:
Yes. The recall of the judgment of acquittal will result in double jeopardy since that in our jurisdiction, we adhere to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable.
Under the 1987 Constitution, this guarantees the right of the accused against double jeopardy. For double jeopardy to attach, the following elements must concur:
valid information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction of the crime charged;
a court of competent jurisdiction;
the accused has been arraigned and had pleaded; and
the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed without his express consent
Here, all the elements were present. There was valid information for two counts of rape over which the RTC had jurisdiction and to which the accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty. After the trial, a judgment of acquittal was thereafter rendered. Though there was a mix-up of orders with a different case involving the same accused-appellant that made the court render an acquittal. This, however, does not change the fact that a judgment of acquittal had already been promulgated. Indeed, whether ordered by the trial or the appellate court, a judgment of acquittal is final, unappealable, and immediately executory upon its promulgation.
The rule on double jeopardy, however, is not without exceptions, which are:
Where there has been a deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a mistrial, or
Where there has been a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances.
In this case, these exceptions do not exist. Here, there was no deprivation of due process or mistrial because the records show that the prosecution was actually able to present their case and their witnesses.
Accused-appellant Lino Alejandro y Pimentel is hereby ACQUITTED and is ordered immediately RELEASED from custody unless he is being held for another lawful cause.
No comments:
Post a Comment