People v. Court of Appeals – GR No. 183652.

February 25, 2015

Facts:
1. Private respondents Carampatana, Oporto and Alquizola were charged, together with Christian John Lim,
Emmanuel dela Cruz, Samuel Rudinas, Jansen Roda, Harold Batoctoy, and Joseph Villame, for allegedly
raping AAA.
2. AAA, after attending her high school graduation, told her father that she would be attending a graduation
dinner party with her friends. After dinner, Lim invited them to go to Alson's Palace, which was merely a
walking distance away from Gemeno's house. Outside the Alson's Palace, they were greeted by Aldrin
Montesco, Junver Alquizola, and Cherry Mae Fiel. After a while, they went inside and proceeded to a
bedroom on the second floor where they again saw Montesco with Harold Batoctoy, Jansen Roda,
Emmanuel dela Cruz, Samuel Rudinas, a certain Diego, and one Angelo. Rudinas suggested that they have
a drinking session to celebrate their graduation, to which the rest agreed. Ha
3. Then they arranged themselves in a circle for the drinking spree. Two (2) glasses were being passed
around: one glass containing the sweetener (Pepsi) and the other glass containing the liquor. At first, AAA
refused to drink because she had never tried hard liquor before. During the session, they shared their
problems with each other. When it was AAA's turn, she became emotional and started crying. It was then
that she took her first shot. The glasses were passed around and she consumed more or less 5 glasses of
Emperador Brandy.
4. Thereafter, she felt dizzy so she laid her head down on Oporto's 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. But they just laughed at her. Then, Roda also kissed her. At that time, AAA was
already sleepy, but they still forced her to take another shot. They helped her stand up and make her
drink. She even heard Lim say, "Hubuga na, hubuga na," (You make her drunk, you make her drunk).
5. The next thing she knew, Roda and Batoctoy were carrying her down the stairs, and then she was asleep
again. 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. She started crying. She tried to resist
when she felt pain in her genitals. She also saw Carampatana and Moises Alquizola inside the room,
watching as Oporto abused her. At one point, AAA woke up while Carampatana was inserting his penis
into her private organ. She cried and told him to stop. Alquizola then joined and started to kiss her. For
the last time, she fell unconscious.
6. RTC found the accused guilty of Rape.
7. CA reversed RTC decision and acquitted the accused: 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. She was wide awake and aware of what private
respondents were doing before the intercourse. She never showed any physical resistance, never shouted
for help, and never fought against her alleged ravishers. The appellate court further relied on the medical
report which showed the presence of an old hymenal laceration on AAA's genitalia, giving the impression
that she has had some carnal knowledge with a man before. The CA also stressed that AAA's mother's
unusual reaction of hitting her when she discovered what happened to her daughter was more consistent
with that of a parent who found out that her child just had premarital sex rather

Issue: WON CA acted with grave abuse of discretion in acquitting the accused? YES

Held:

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.

1. Yes, the CA 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.
2. 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.
3. The elements of rape are: (1) the offender had a 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 12 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.
4. 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 AAA’s 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.