REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES THIRD JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 60 ANGELES CITY 1ang060, liciai Nv. mobile no. 09998189709 ‘THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, R-ANG-17-00268-CR FOR: KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM WITH HOMICIDE -VERSUS- R-ANG-17-01074-CR FOR: KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION SPO3 RICKY STA. ISABELY MOLABOLA, _R-ANG-17-01075-CR ‘SPO4 ROY VILLEGAS Y LEVISTE FOR: CARNAPPING P/SUPT. RAFAEL P. DUMLAO III A.K.A. SIR DUMLAO, JERRY OMLANG Y ABARANDO A.K.A. JERRY AND SEVERAL JOHN DOES, Accused. ORDER The court notes the Opposition to the Prosecution's Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by accused Rafael P. Dumiao Ill (hereinafter referred to as Dumiao), through counsel Aldave Abellar & Valenzuela Law Offices by Atty. Arnold A. Valenzuela, The court now resolves the Motion for Partial Reconsideration (of the Decision dated June 6, 2023) filed by the People through Deputy State Prosecutor Olivia |. Laroza-Torrevillas and Senior Assistant State Prosecutor Ethel Rea G. Suril In its Motion for Partial Reconsideration, the People prayed "WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court RECONSIDER. its ruling in its Joint Decision dated June 6, 2023 as regards the participation of accused Rafael P. Dumilao Ill and find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt together with accused Sta Isabel and Omlang for the crimes of kidnapping with homicide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention and carnapping, Other reliefs, just and equitable under the foregoing premises are likewise being prayed for." The People argued that the court committed grave error of fact and law amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction when it totally disregarded the facts adduced by the prosecution as to Dumlao’s participation in the crimes charged and the fact that conspiracy to commit the crime was faithfully established through the testimonies of prosecution's witnesses. The People’s witnesses had established that Dumlao was a material part in the conspiracy to commit the crimes against Ickdoo Jee and Marisa Morquicho. It cited the case of People v, Lababo! and raised {hat one who participates in the material execution of the crime by standing guard Cr lending moral support to the actual participation thereof s criminally responsible {o the same extent as the actual perpetrator, especially if they did nothing to Prevent the crime. The People further argued that the court committed serious errors of law amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it failed to consider the defensive cn the fact that when Dumilao took the witness stand, he did not do so to unearth the truth and to assert his innocence, instead, he avoided the questions, his and aggressive. It did not look at all like an attitude of an innocent and credible person The People also claimed that the court committed serious errors of law when it failed to consider that based on its finding that Dumlao interrogated victim during the PNP-AKG's investigations, accused Dumlao is liable and guilty beyond reasonable doubt as an accomplice to the aforesaid crimes. Assuming without admitting that Dumlao may not be the principal author of the kidnapping of Ick Joo Jee, the court should not have exonerated him completely of the crimes with which he was undoubtedly a part of. In his opposition, Dumtao prayed for the denial of the Motion for Partial Reconsideration. He contended that the court extensively discussed his alleged Participation as well as the allegations of conspiracy being espoused by the prosecution. Contrary to the assertion of the State that the court totally disregarded the testimonies of its witnesses, the court in fact very much considered the testimonies of Baldovino and Villegas. He quoted and pointed out pages 176, 177, 181, and 184 of the Joint Decision dated June 6, 2023 showing that the acquittal of Dumlao was actually based on what was testified to by the prosecution's witnesses. Dumlao likewise maintained that the alleged failure to consider his demeanor, assuming the same to be true, would not in any way amount to a “serious error of law’. An error of law pertains to an error in the interpretation of a Provision of law, legal principle or established jurisprudence. He averred that in Pages 152 to 157 of the Joint Decision dated June 6, 2023, the court discussed his testimony as well as his justification and rationalization of his denial of all the allegations against him. Thus, there is no truth to the assertion that the court failed to consider his demeanor in its Joint Decision He further contended that the court considered whether his acts would qualify him as an accomplice by citing pages 184 to 185 of the Joint Decision showing that the requisites laid down by established jurisprudence in order to consider him liable as an accomplice do not exist. The issue for resolution is whether the Joint Decision dated June 6, 2023 should be reconsidered as regards the participation of accused Rafael P. Dumlao lll and find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt together with accused Sta. Isabel and Omlang for the crimes of kidnapping with homicide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention, and carnapping. Section 7, Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: "GR, No. 234651, June 6, 2018.Section 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double Jeopardy. — When an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information, 2090 The Supreme Court, in the case of People v. Hon. Perlita J. Tria-Tirona,? held that “to settle the issue of whether or not an acquittal can stil be appealed, this Court pronounced in People v. Velasco that as mandated by the Constitution, statutes and jurisprudence, an acquittal is final and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy, whether it happens at the trial court level or before the Court of Appeals.’ Thus, once an accused is acquitted, the prosecution may no longer file an appeal on account of double jeopardy. This doctrine is further strengthened in the case of People v. Lino Alejandro y Pimentel, where the Supreme Court held: |n our jurisdiction, We adhere to the finality-of- acquittal Goctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable, The 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of the accused against double jeopardy, thus: Section 7, Rule 117 of the 1985 and 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure strictly adhere to the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy and provide for the requisites in order for double Jeopardy to attach. For double jeopardy to attach, the following elements must concur: (1) a valid information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction of the crime charged; (2) a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and had pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitied or the ‘case was dismissed without his express consent. While the “finality-of-acquittal” rule is not absolute, to the court's mind, the exception to such was not met by the People’s allegations. The Supreme Court in the case of People v. Honorable Sandiganbayan and Benjamin S. Abalos, is instructive, to wit: The “finality-of-acquittal” rule has one exception: itis inapplicable where the Court which rendered the acquittal did so with— x x x grave abuse of discretion that is strictly limited whenever there is a violation of the prosecution's right to due process such a5 when it is denied the opportunity to present evidence or where the trial is sham or when there is a mistrial, rendering the judgment of acquittal void. An example of an exception to the finality-of-acquittal rule is the case of Gaiman v. Sandiganbayan where the Court remanded the case to the trial court because the previous trial conducted was a ?G.R. No. 130106, July 15, 2005 G.R, No, 223099, January 11, 2018. “GR, No, 228281, June 14, 2021Mockery, The unique facts surrounding the Galman case Constitute the very narrow exception to the application of the right against double jeopardy. Hence, in order for the CA to take cognizance of the certiorari petition, AAA and the prosecution ‘must have clearly demonstrated that the RTC blatantly abused its authority to point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice, In the present case, it bears to point out that during the conduct of trial, the Prosecution was able present and formally offer evidence in support of its case, The same pieces of evidence were likewise discussed and considered as can be gleaned from the cours 192-paged Joint Decision dated June 6, 2023. Thus the finality-of-acquittal doctrine is maintained. In view of the foregoing, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration (of the Decision dated June 6, 2023) is hereby denied SO ORDERED. Angeles City, July 4, 2023. fy oi, Presiding Judge oe DSP Olivia |. Laroza-Torrevillas SASP Ethel Rea G. Suril Atty. Arnold A, Valenzuela Ay. Lloyd M. Lequin lledan Castiion and Associates Law Office Atty. Antoniette K. Sumead-Narecida