Case No. 43 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANTONIO PAILANO G.R. No. L-43602 January 31, 1989 Facts: Pailano was charged with the rape by Anita Ibañez . She accused Pailano of dragging her in a bushy place, threatened her with a scythe, and then forcibly raped her. Pailano, 69 y.o., did not deny that he had sexual intercourse with Anita, but insisted that it was voluntary.According to him, it was Anita who enticed him into the bushes. He was unable to have an erection because of his age, but Anita rubbed his organ until he was stimulated and succeeded in penetrating her. The criminal complaint alleged the commission of the crime of rape through force or intimidation. However, the prosecution sought to establish at the trial that Anita was a mental retardate. Its purpose in doing so is not clear. Issue: Can Pailano be convicted on the ground not alleged in the criminal complaint? Ruling: NO. Pailano cannot be convicted on the ground not alleged in the criminal complaint. Conviction of the accused on the finding that he had raped Anita while she was unconscious or otherwise deprived of reason (mental retardate) and not through force and intimidation, which was the method alleged would have violated his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. This right is safeguarded by the Constitution to every accused so he can prepare an adequate defense against the charge against him. Convicting him of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating on his defense against the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded. Case No. 65 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BIENVINIDO UDANG G.R. No. 210161, January 10, 2018 Facts: Udang was charged with (1) rape, under the Revised Penal Code, and with (2) sexual abuse, under Republic Act No. 7610. The offended party is a child 12 years old and above. The two charges were based on a single incident when Udang willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and sexually abuse the minor complainant. Issue: Is there double jeopardy considering that Udang is being charged for two offenses arising from one incident. Ruling: There is no double jeopardy. A single criminal act may give rise to a multiplicity of offenses and where there is variance or differences between the elements of an offense in one law and another law as in the case at bar there will be no double jeopardy because what the rule on double jeopardy prohibits refers to identity of elements in the two (2) offenses. Otherwise stated, prosecution for the same act is not prohibited. What is forbidden is prosecution for the same offense. Hence, the mere filing of the two (2) sets of information does not itself give rise to double jeopardy. Case No. 69 PEOPLE v. DOMINGO ARCEGA GR No. 237489, Aug 27, 2020 Facts: Arcega was charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iriga City with attempted rape .The RTC convicted Arcega with attempted rape but the CA,it modified the decision which downgraded respondent's conviction for attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness. The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition for review on certiorari in the SC which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner may assail through petition for review on certiorari the CA’s Decision which modified the RTC Judgment convicting respondent of attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness. Ruling: No. The PP cannot assail through petition for review on certiorari the CA’s Decision which modified the RTC Judgment convicting respondent of attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness. When the CA modified his conviction from attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness, the CA, in effect had already acquitted him of attempted rape; that such judgment of acquittal can only be assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and not in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, otherwise, respondent's right against double jeopardy would be violated. *Note the difference of rule 45 and rule 65. Case No. 87 CECILIA RIVAC v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 224673, January 22, 2018 Facts: Rivac was charged of the crime Estafa before the RTC. The information stated that she allegedly received for sale on consignment pieces of jewelry under the express obligation to remit the proceeds of the sale or if not sold, to return the pieces of jewelry after 7 days. Rivac failed to perform what was incumbent upon her. The RTC found Rivac guilty beyond reasonable doubt. After the promulgation of the aforesaid Judgment and before it lapsed into finality, Rivac moved to reopen proceedings which was party granted by the RTC. CA upheld Rivac’s conviction but held that the RTC erred in allowing the reopening of the case. Issue: Whether or not the RTC erred in reopening the case. Ruling: No. The RTC is correct when it allowed the reopening of the case. A motion to reopen may thus properly be presented only after either or both parties had formally offered and closed their evidence, but before judgment is rendered, and even after promulgation but before finality of judgment and the only controlling guideline covering a motion to reopen is the paramount interest of justice. This remedy of reopening a case was meant to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Case No. 91 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. LINO ALEJANDRO G.R. No. 223099, January 11, 2018 Facts: Accused-appellant was charged with two counts of rape in relation to Republic Act No. 8369, of a 12-year-old minor, AAA. Upon arraignment, accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty and trial ensued. On July 26, 2011, the RTC promulgated a Decision acquitting the accusedappellant. On the same day, however, the RTC recalled the said decision and issued an Order, stating: “to rectify the error committed and in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice, the Decision promulgated today acquitting the accused is hereby RECALLED and SET ASIDE” Issue: Can the RTC rectify an erroneous and misapprehended acquittal that attained finality after valid promulgation. Ruling: No. the RTC cannot rectify an erroneous and misapprehended acquittal that attained finality after valid promulgation In our jurisdiction, We adhere to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. A judgment of acquittal was rendered based on the mistaken notion that the private complainant failed to testify; allegedly because of the mix-up of orders with a different case involving the same accused-appellant. This, however, does not change the fact that a judgment of acquittal had already been promulgated. Indeed, a judgment of acquittal, whether ordered by the trial or the appellate court, is final, unappealable, and immediately executory upon its promulgation.
