Scribd
Upload
200 views2 pages

G.R. No. 183652 February 25, 2015 Case Digest

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and AAA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 21st DIVISION, MINDANAO STATION, RAYMUND CARAMPATANA, JOEFHEL OPORTO, and MOISES ALQUIZOLA, Respondents.

Uploaded by

Dyez Belle
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
200 views2 pages

G.R. No. 183652 February 25, 2015 Case Digest

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and AAA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 21st DIVISION, MINDANAO STATION, RAYMUND CARAMPATANA, JOEFHEL OPORTO, and MOISES ALQUIZOLA, Respondents.

Uploaded by

Dyez Belle
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

183652               February 25, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and AAA, Petitioner,


vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, 21st DIVISION, MINDANAO STATION, RAYMUND
CARAMPATANA, JOEFHEL OPORTO, and MOISES ALQUIZOLA, Respondents.

FACTS:

Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari questioning the Decision1 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) dated June 6, 2008. The CA reversed and set aside the Decision2 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kapatagan, dated February 28, 2006, and acquitted
private respondents Raymund Carampatana, Joefhel Oporto, and Moises Alquizola of
the crime of rape for the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

In the evening of March 25, 2004 the above-named accused conspiring, confederating
and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with lewd designs forcefully drunk AAA, a 16-year-old minor, and brought
said AAA at about dawn of March 26, 2004 at Alquizola Lodging house and once
inside , accused RAYMUND CARAMPATANA and JOEPHEL OPORTO took turns in
having carnal knowledge against the will of AAA while accused MOISES ALQUIZOLA,
with lewd designs, kissed her against her will and consent.

On February 28, 2006, the RTC found private respondents Carampatana, Oporto and
Alquizola guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

Aggrieved by the RTC Decision, private respondents brought the case to the CA. On
June 6, 2008, the appellate court rendered the assailed Decision reversing the trial
court’s ruling and, consequently, acquitted private respondents. In sum, the CA found
that the prosecution failed to prove private respondents’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
It gave more credence to the version of the defense and ruled that AAA consented to
the sexual congress.

On July 29, 2008, AAA, through her private counsel, filed a Petition for Certiorari9 under
Rule 65, questioning the CA Decision which reversed private respondents’ conviction
and ardently contending that the same was made with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals act 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 petitioner’s
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 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.

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 even admitted to kissing AAA’s
lips, breasts, and other parts of her body. Indubitably, there was a 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.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed


Decision dated June 6, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00422-MIN
is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.

You might also like