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.