THIRD DIVISION

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

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND AAA, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, 21ST DIVISION,
MINDANAO STATION, RAYMUND CARAMPATANA, JOEFHEL OPORTO, AND MOISES
ALQUIZOLA, Respondents.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari questioning the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated June
6, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00422-MIN. The CA reversed and set aside the Decision2 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte, Branch 21, dated February 28, 2006 in Criminal Case No. 21-
1211, and acquitted private respondents Raymund Carampatana, Joefhel Oporto, and Moises Alquizola of
the crime of rape for the prosecutions failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In a Second Amended Information dated June 23, 2004, 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,3 to wit: chanRoblesvi rtua lLawl ibra ry

That on or about 10:30 oclock in the evening of March 25, 2004 at Alsons Palace, Maranding, Lala, Lanao
del Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, 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, with an intoxicating liquor and
once intoxicated, brought said AAA at about dawn of March 26, 2004 at Alquizola Lodging house, Maranding,
Lala, Lanao del Norte and also within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, and once inside said lodging
house, 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.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

Upon arraignment, accused, assisted by their respective counsels, entered a plea of not guilty to the offense
charged.5cralawlawl ibra ry

Following pre-trial,6 trial on the merits ensued. Accused Christian John Lim, however, remains at-large.

The factual antecedents follow:

On March 25, 2004, around 8:00 a.m., AAA attended her high school graduation ceremony. Afterwards,
they had a luncheon party at their house in Maranding, Lala, Lanao del Norte. AAA then asked permission
from her mother to go to the Maranding Stage Plaza because she and her bandmates had to perform for an
election campaign. She went home at around 4:00 p.m. from the plaza. At about 7:00 p.m., AAA told her
father that she would be attending a graduation dinner party with her friends. AAA, together with Lim,
Oporto, and Carampatana, ate dinner at the house of one Mark Gemeno at Purok, Bulahan, Maranding.
After eating, Lim invited them to go to Alsons Palace, which was merely a walking distance away from
Gemenos house. Outside the Alsons 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.

They all contributed and it was Joseph Villame who bought the drinks two (2) bottles of Emperador
Brandy. 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 AAAs 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 five (5)
glasses of Emperador Brandy.

Thereafter, she felt dizzy so she laid her head down on Oportos 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). She
likewise heard someone say, You drink it, you drink it. She leaned on Oportos lap again, then she fell
asleep. They woke her up and Lim gave her the Emperador Brandy bottle to drink the remaining liquor
inside. She tried to refuse but they insisted, so she drank directly from the bottle. Again, she fell asleep.

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.

When she woke up, it was already 7:00 a.m. of the next day. She was all alone. Her body felt heavy and
exhausted. She found herself with her shirt on but without her lower garments. The upper half of her body
was on top of the bed but her feet were on the floor. There were also red stains on her shirt. After dressing
up, she hailed a trisikad and went home. When AAA reached their house, her father was waiting for her and
was already furious. When she told them that she was raped, her mother started hitting her. They brought
her to the Lala Police Station to make a report. Thereafter, they proceeded to the district hospital for her
medical examination.

Dr. Cyrus Acusta of the Kapatagan District Hospital examined AAA in the morning of March 26, 2004, and
found an old hymenal laceration at 5 oclock position and hyperemia or redness at the posterior fornices.
The vaginal smear likewise revealed the presence of sperm.

On the other hand, accused denied that they raped AAA. According to the defense witnesses, in the evening
of March 25, 2004, Oporto, Carampatana, Lim, and AAA had dinner at Gemenos house. Gemeno then
invited Oporto to attend the graduation party hosted by Montesco at Alsons Palace, owned by the latters
family. When they reached the place, Oporto told Montesco that they had to leave for Barangay Tenazas to
fetch one Arcie Ariola. At about 11:30 p.m., Oporto and Carampatana returned to Alsons Palace but could
not find AAA and Lim. The party subsequently ended, but the group agreed to celebrate further. AAA,
Rudinas, Dela Cruz, Lim, and Oporto contributed for two (2) bottles of Emperador Brandy and one (1) liter
of Pepsi.

Several persons were in the room at that time: AAA, Carampatana, Oporto, Dela Cruz, Rudinas, Roda,
Batoctoy, Villame, and Lim. Also present but did not join the drinking were Gemeno, Montesco, Angelo
Ugnabia, Al Jalil Diego, Mohamad Janisah Manalao, one Caga, and a certain Bantulan. Gemeno told AAA not
to drink but the latter did not listen and instead told him not to tell her aunt. During the drinking session,
AAA rested on Oportos lap. She even showed her scorpion tattoo on her buttocks. And when her legs
grazed Batoctoys crotch, she remarked, What was that, penis? Roda then approached AAA to kiss her,
and the latter kissed him back. Oporto did the same and AAA also kissed him. After Oporto, Roda and AAA
kissed each other again.

Meanwhile, earlier that evening, at around 9:00 p.m., Moises Alquizola was at the Alquizola Lodging House
drinking beer with his cousin, Junver, and Fiel. They stopped drinking at around midnight. Fiel then
requested Alquizola to accompany her to Alsons Palace to see her friends there. They proceeded to the
second floor and there they saw AAA lying on Oportos lap. Fiel told AAA to go home because her mother
might get angry. AAA could not look her in the eye, just shook her head, and said, I just stay here.
Alquizola and Fiel then went back to the lodging house. After thirty minutes, they went to Alsons Palace
again, and saw AAA and Oporto kissing each other. AAA was lying on his lap while holding his neck.
Subsequently, they went back to the lodging house to resume drinking.

After drinking, Batoctoy offered to bring AAA home. But she refused and instead instructed them to take
her to the Alquizola Lodging House because she has a big problem. AAA, Lim, and Carampatana rode a
motorcycle to the lodging house. When they arrived, AAA approached Alquizola and told him, Kuya, I want
to sleep here for the meantime. Alquizola then opened Room No. 4 where AAA, Oporto, and Carampatana
stayed. There were two beds inside, a single bed and a double-sized bed. AAA lay down on the single bed
and looked at Carampatana. The latter approached her and they kissed. He then removed her shirt and
AAA voluntarily raised her hands to give way. Carampatana likewise removed her brassiere. All the while,
Oporto was at the foot of the bed. Thereafter, Oporto also removed her pants. AAA even lifted her buttocks
to make it easier for him to pull her underwear down. Oporto then went to AAA and kissed her on the lips.
Carampatana, on the other hand, placed himself in between AAAs legs and had intercourse with her. When
he finished, he put on his shorts and went back to Alsons Palace to get some sleep. When he left, Oporto
and AAA were still kissing. Alquizola then entered the room. When AAA saw him, she said, Come Kuya,
embrace me because I have a problem. Alquizola thus started kissing AAAs breasts. Oporto stood up and
opened his pants. AAA held his penis and performed fellatio on him. Then Oporto and Alquizola changed
positions. Oporto proceeded to have sexual intercourse with AAA. During that time, AAA was moaning and
calling his name. Afterwards, Oporto went outside and slept with Alquizola on the carpet. Oporto then had
intercourse with AAA two more times. At 3:00 a.m., he went back to Alsons Palace to sleep. At around
6:00 a.m., Oporto and Carampatana went back to the lodging house. They tried to wake AAA up, but she
did not move so they just left and went home. Alquizola had gone outside but he came back before 7:00
a.m. However, AAA was no longer there when he arrived.

On February 28, 2006, the RTC found private respondents Carampatana, Oporto and Alquizola guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. It, however, acquitted Dela Cruz, Rudinas, Roda, Batoctoy, and
Villame for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The dispositive portion of
the Decision reads:chanRoble svi rtual Lawli bra ry

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered:

a) Finding accused Raymund Carampatana GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and the
Court hereby sentences him to suffer the indivisible prison term of reclusion perpetua; to pay AAA the
amount of P50,000.00 for and by way of civil indemnity;

b) Finding accused Joefhel Oporto GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and the court
hereby sentences him to suffer a prison term of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum
to twelve (12) years also of prision mayor as maximum; to pay AAA the sum of P50,000.00 as moral
damages and another amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity;

c) Finding accused Moises Alquizola GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as ACCOMPLICE in the commission of
the crime charged, and the court hereby sentences him to suffer an indeterminate prison term of six (6)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal as maximum; to pay AAA the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages and another sum of
P30,000.00 for and by way of civil indemnity;

d) Finding accused Emmanuel dela Cruz, Samuel Rudinas, Jansen Roda, Harold Batoctoy and Joseph Villame
NOT GUILTY of the crime charged for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt therefor beyond
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Court acquits them of said charge; and

e) Ordering accused Carampatana, Oporto and Alquizola to pay, jointly and severally, the amount of
P50,000.00 as attorneys fees and expenses of litigations; and the costs of suit.

The full period of the preventive imprisonment of accused Carampatana, Oporto and Alquizola shall be
credited to them and deducted from their prison terms provided they comply with the requirements of
Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.

Accused Raymund Carampatana surrendered voluntarily on 26 March 2004 and detained since then up to
the present. Accused Alquizola also surrendered voluntarily on 26 March 2004 and detained since then up
to this time, while accused Joefhel Oporto who likewise surrendered voluntarily on 26 March 2004 was
ordered released to the custody of the DSWD, Lala, Lanao del Norte on 31 March 2004, and subsequently
posted cash bond for his provisional liberty on 17 September 2004 duly approved by this court, thus
resulted to an order of even date for his release from the custody of the DSWD.

Let the records of this case be sent to the archive files without prejudice on the prosecution to prosecute the
case against accused Christian John Lim as soon as he is apprehended.
SO ORDERED.7

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 courts ruling and, consequently, acquitted
private respondents. The decretal portion of said decision reads: chanRoblesv irtual Lawlib rary

WHEREFORE, finding reversible errors therefrom, the Decision on appeal is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. For lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellants RAYMUND CARAMPATANA, JOEFHEL
OPORTO and MOISES ALQUIZOLA are instead ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

SO ORDERED.8

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. 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 AAAs genitalia, giving the impression that she has had some carnal knowledge with a
man before. The CA also stressed that AAAs mothers 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 than one who was sexually assaulted.

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.

Thus, AAA raises this lone issue in her petition: chanRoble svi rtual Lawli bra ry

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ACQUITTING THE
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.10
ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary

The private respondents present the following arguments in their Comment dated November 7, 2008 to
assail the petition: chanRo blesvi rtua lLawl ib rary

I.

A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IS IMMEDIATELY FINAL AND EXECUTORY AND THE PROSECUTION CANNOT
APPEAL THE ACQUITTAL BECAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

II.

THE PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE THAT THERE IS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION ON THE PART OF PUBLIC RESPONDENT.

III.

CERTIORARI WILL NOT LIE UNLESS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS FIRST FILED.

IV.

THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL IS THE APPELLATE COUNSEL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES IN ALL CRIMINAL CASES.11

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its own Comment on April 1, 2009. It assigns the following
errors: c hanRoblesv irtual Lawlib rary

I.

THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT MAY VALIDLY APPEAL AN ORDER OF ACQUITTAL AS TO THE CIVIL ASPECT OF
THE CRIME.
 II.

THE APPELLATE DECISION OF ACQUITTAL IS NULL AND VOID FOR HAVING BEEN RENDERED WITH GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, AN EXCEPTION TO THE
PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY.12
ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary

The Court will first resolve the procedural issues.

At the onset, the Court stresses that rules of procedure are meant to be tools to facilitate a fair and orderly
conduct of proceedings. Strict adherence thereto must not get in the way of achieving substantial justice.
As long as their purpose is sufficiently met and no violation of due process and fair play takes place, the
rules should be liberally construed.13 Liberal construction of the rules is the controlling principle to effect
substantial justice. The relaxation or suspension of procedural rules, or the exemption of a case from their
operation, is warranted when compelling reasons exist or when the purpose of justice requires it. Thus,
litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on sheer technicalities.14 c ralawlawl ibra ry

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. The reason is that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and
executory, and the prosecution is barred from appealing lest the constitutional prohibition against double
jeopardy be violated.15 Section 21, Article III of the Constitution provides: chanRoble svi rtual Lawli bra ry

Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is
punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same act.

Despite acquittal, however, either the offended party or the accused may appeal, but only with respect to
the civil aspect of the decision. Or, said judgment of acquittal may be assailed through a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court showing that the lower court, in acquitting the accused,
committed not merely reversible errors of judgment, but also exercised grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or a denial of due process, thereby rendering the assailed judgment null and
void.16 If there is grave abuse of discretion, granting petitioners prayer is not tantamount to putting private
respondents in double jeopardy.17 cra lawlawlib rary

As to the party with the proper legal standing to bring the action, the Court said in People v. Santiago:18 cralawlawlib rary

It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private
complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the
offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is
dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be
undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the
People of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended party or complainant may not take such appeal.
However, the said offended party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the
accused.

In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is
alleged that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretionamounting to lack of jurisdiction or on
other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition may be filed by the person aggrieved. In
such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private offended party or complainant. The
complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil action
questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds. In so doing,
complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. The action
may be prosecuted in [the] name of said complainant.19
ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary

Private respondents argue that the action should have been filed by the State through the OSG. True, in
criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by
the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State. This is because the authority to represent the State in
appeals of criminal cases before the Supreme Court and the CA is solely vested in the OSG.20 cralawlawlib rary

Here, AAA filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, albeit at the instance of her private counsel, primarily
imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA when it acquitted private respondents. As the
aggrieved party, AAA clearly has the right to bring the action in her name and maintain the criminal
prosecution. She has an immense interest in obtaining justice in the case precisely because she is the
subject of the violation. Further, as held in Dela Rosa v. CA,21 where the Court sustained the private
offended partys right in a criminal case to file a special civil action for certiorari to question the validity of
the judgment of dismissal and ruled that the Solicitor Generals intervention was not necessary, the recourse
of the complainant to the Court is proper since it was brought in her own name and not in that of the People
of the Philippines. In any event, the OSG joins petitioners cause in its Comment,22 thereby fulfilling the
requirement that all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public
prosecutor.23 cra lawlawlib rary

Private respondents further claim that even assuming, merely for the sake of argument, that AAA can file
the special civil action for certiorari without violating their right against double jeopardy, still, it must be
dismissed for petitioners failure to previously file a motion for reconsideration.

True, a motion for reconsideration is a condicio sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. Its
purpose is for the court to have an opportunity to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by re-
examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case. This rule, however, is not absolute and
admits well-defined exceptions, such as: (a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a
quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised
and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court;
(c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would
prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is
perishable; (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where
petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a criminal case,
relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (g)
where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceedings
were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one
purely of law or where public interest is involved.24 cra lawlawlib ra ry

Here, petitioners case amply falls within the exception. AAA raises the same questions as those raised and
passed upon in the lower court, essentially revolving on the guilt of the private respondents. There is also
an urgent necessity to resolve the issues, for any further delay would prejudice the interests, not only of the
petitioner, but likewise that of the Government. And, as will soon be discussed, the CA decision is a patent
nullity for lack of due process and for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction.

For the writ of certiorari to issue, the respondent court must be shown to have acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. An acquittal is considered tainted with grave abuse of
discretion when it is shown that the prosecutions right to due process was violated or that the trial
conducted was a sham. The burden is on the petitioner to clearly demonstrate and establish that the
respondent court blatantly abused its authority such as to deprive itself of its very power to dispense
justice.25
c ralawlawli bra ry

AAA claims in her petition that the CA, in evident display of grave abuse of judicial discretion, totally
disregarded her testimony as well as the trial courts findings of fact, thereby adopting hook, line, and
sinker, the private respondents narration of facts.

The term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning. An act of a court or tribunal can only be
considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion
of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation
of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and
hostility.26 There is grave abuse of discretion when the disputed act of the lower court goes beyond the
limits of discretion thus effecting an injustice.27 cralaw lawlib rary

The Court finds that 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. At first, it may seem that its narration of the facts28 of the case
was meticulously culled from the evidence of both parties. But 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,29 Carampatana,30 and Alquizola,31 the accused-appellants in the case before it. The appellate court
merely echoed the private respondents testimonies, particularly those as to the specific events that
transpired during the crucial period - from the dinner at Gemenos house to the following morning at the
Alquizola Lodging House. As a result, 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.

Due process requires that, in reaching a decision, a tribunal must consider the entire evidence presented,
regardless of the party who offered the same.32 It simply cannot acknowledge that of one party and turn a
blind eye to that of the other. It cannot appreciate one partys cause and brush the other aside. This rule
becomes particularly significant in this case because the parties tendered contradicting versions of the
incident. The victim is crying rape but the accused are saying it was a consensual sexual rendezvous. Thus,
the CAs blatant disregard of material prosecution evidence and outward bias in favor of that of the defense
constitutes grave abuse of discretion resulting in violation of petitioners right to due process.33 cralaw lawlib rary

Moreover, the CA likewise easily swept under the rug the observations of the RTC and made its own flimsy
findings to justify its decision of acquittal.

First, the appellate court held that AAA was, in fact, conscious during the whole ordeal. The fact that she
never showed any physical resistance, never cried out for help, and never fought against the private
respondents, bolsters the claim of the latter that the sexual acts were indeed consensual.

But the CA seemed to forget that AAA was heavily intoxicated at the time of the assault. Article 266-A of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides: cha nRoblesvi rt ualLaw lib rary

Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. Rape is committed

1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
cralaw red

a. Through force, threat or intimidation;

b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present;
2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an
act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

Under the aforecited provision, the elements of rape are: (1) the offender had 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 twelve years of age.34 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. The
CA, however, readily concluded that she agreed to the sexual act simply because she did not shout or offer
any physical resistance, disregarding her testimony that she was rendered weak and dizzy by intoxication,
thereby facilitating the commission of the crime.35 The appellate court never provided any reason why
AAAs testimony should deserve scant or no weight at all, or why it cannot be accorded any credence. In
reviewing rape cases, the lone testimony of the victim is and should be, by itself, sufficient to warrant a
judgment of conviction if found to be credible. Also, it has been established that when a woman declares
that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to mean that she has been raped, and
where her testimony passes the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted on that basis alone. This is
because from the nature of the offense, the sole evidence that can usually be offered to establish the guilt of
the accused is the complainants testimony itself.36 The trial court correctly ruled that if AAA was not
truthful to her accusation, she would not have opened herself to the rough and tumble of a public trial. AAA
was certainly not enjoying the prying eyes of those who were listening as she narrated her harrowing
experience.37cral awlawlib rary

AAA positively identified the private respondents as the ones who violated her. She tried to resist, but
because of the presence of alcohol, her assaulters still prevailed. The RTC found AAAs testimony simple and
candid, indicating that she was telling the truth. The trial court likewise observed that her answers to the
lengthy and humiliating questions were simple and straightforward, negating the possibility of a rehearsed
testimony.38 Thus: chanRoblesvi rtual Lawli bra ry

Atty. Jesus M. Generalao (on direct):

xxxx
Q: Now, you said also when the Court asked you that you went asleep, when did you regain your
consciousness?
A: They woke me up and wanted me to drink the remaining wine inside the bottle of Emperador Brandy. cralawred

xxxx

Q: What do you mean that they hide you (sic) to drink the remaining contained (sic) of the bottle of
Emperador Brandy?
A: They gave me the bottle, sir, and I was trying to refuse but they insisted.

Q: Who handed over to you that bottle, if you can remember?

A: It was Christian John Lim, sir.

Q: Did you drink that Emperador directly from the bottle?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What happened after that?

A: I fell asleep again, sir.

Q: When did you regain your consciousness?

A: When somebody was carrying me down to the spiral stairs.

Q: Can you remember the person or persons who was or who were carrying you?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Who?
A: They were Jansen Roda and Harold Batoctoy.

Q: If you can still remember, how did Jansen Roda and Harold Batoctoy carry you?
A: I placed my hands to their shoulder (sic), sir:

xxxx

Q: After that, what happened, if any?

A: I was already asleep, sir, when we went downstairs.

Q: You mean to say that you cannot remember anymore?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, when again did you regain your consciousness?

A: When we entered the room and the light was switch (sic) on, I was awakened by the flash of light.

Q: Do you have any idea, where were you when you were awakened that (sic) flash of light.
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where?
A: Alquizola Lodging House, sir. cralaw red

xxxx

Q: When you regained your consciousness from the flash of light, what happened?
A: I loss (sic) my consciousness again, sir.

Q: So, you fell asleep again?

A: Yes, sir.
cralawred

xxxx

Q: When did you wake-up (sic) again?

A: When I feel (sic) heavy on top of me, sir.
Q: So you wake-up (sic) again, whom did you see?
A: It was Joefhel Oporto, sir.

Q: He was on top of you?

A: Yes, sir. (Witness is crying while answering)

Q: What was you (sic) reaction when you found that Joefhel Oporto was on top of you?
A: I was starting to cry, sir.

Q: Aside from starting to cry, what else is (sic) your reaction?

A: I was saying dont because I feel pain my private organ (sic).

Q: What did Joefhel Oporto do, when you (sic) those words?
A: He was kissing on the different part (sic) of my body then he sexually abused me.

ATTY. GENERALAO: We want to make it on record, Your Honor, that the witness is crying. cralaw red

xxxx

ATTY. GENERALAO: May I continue, Your Honor.

COURT: Continue.

ATTY. GENERALAO: Aside from Joefhel Oporto was found (sic) on top of you, who else was there inside that
room?
A: Moises Alquizola and Raymund Carampatana, sir.

Q: With respect to Raymund Carampatana, what was he doing?

A: He was at my feet while looking at us.

Q: Was it dress (sic) up or undressed?

A: Dressed up, sir.

Q: What about Moises Alquizola, what was he doing?

A: He was beside us standing and looking at me, sir.

Q: Was he dressed up or undressed?

A: I could not remember, sir. cralawred

xxxx

Q: After that, what happened?

A: I went asleep again, sir.

Q: Then, when again did you or when again did you wake up?
A: When I feel (sic) pain something inside my private part (sic), I saw Raymund Carampatana, sir.

Q: On top of you?
A: No, sir, because he was in between my legs, sir.

Q: What was your reaction?

A: I was starting to cry again, sir, and told him dont.

Q: At that point, who else was inside that room when you found Raymund Carampatana?
A: Only the three of them, sir.

Q: Including Moises Alquizola?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What was he doing?

A: He was started (sic) to kiss me.
Q: Where in particular?
A: In my face, sir.

Q: Then after that, what happened?

A: I fell asleep again, sir.

Q: Now, before you went asleep again (sic), what did you feel when you said that you feel (sic) something in
your private part when you saw Raymund Carampatana?
A: He inserted his penis in my private organ, sir.

Q: Then after that you fell asleep again?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: When did you wake-up (sic)?

A: I woke up at about 7:00 oclock a.m in the next (sic) day, sir.39
ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary

On the other hand, the RTC was not convinced with the explanation of the defense. It noted that their
account of the events was seemingly unusual and incredible.40 Besides, the defense of consensual
copulation was belatedly invoked and seemed to have been a last ditch effort to avoid culpability. The
accused never mentioned about the same at the pre-trial stage. The trial court only came to know about it
when it was their turn to take the witness stand, catching the court by surprise.41 More importantly, it must
be emphasized that when the accused in a rape case claims that the sexual intercourse between him and
the complainant was consensual, as in this case, the burden of evidence shifts to him, such that he is now
enjoined to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the relationship. Being an affirmative defense that needs
convincing proof, it must be established with sufficient evidence that the intercourse was indeed
consensual.42 Generally, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to establish each and every element of
the crime and that it is the accused who is responsible for its commission. This is because in criminal cases,
conviction must rest on a moral certainty of guilt.43 Burden of evidence is that logical necessity which rests
on a party at any particular time during the trial to create a prima facie case in his favor or to overthrow one
when created against him. A prima facie case arises when the party having the burden of proof has
produced evidence sufficient to support a finding and adjudication for him of the issue in litigation.44
However, when the accused alleges consensual sexual congress, he needs convincing proof such as love
notes, mementos, and credible witnesses attesting to the romantic or sexual relationship between the
offender and his supposed victim. Having admitted to carnal knowledge of the complainant, the burden now
shifts to the accused to prove his defense by substantial evidence.45c ralawlawl ibra ry

Here, the accused themselves admitted to having carnal knowledge of AAA but unfortunately failed to
discharge the burden required of them. Carampatana narrated that upon reaching the room at the lodging
house, AAA lay down on the bed and looked at him. He then approached her and they kissed. He removed
her shirt and brassiere. Thereafter, Oporto also removed AAAs lower garments and then went to kiss AAA.
Carampatana then placed himself in between AAAs legs and had intercourse with her.46 On the other hand,
Oporto himself testified that he had sexual intercourse with AAA three times. While Carampatana was
removing AAAs shirt and brassiere, Oporto was watching at the foot of the bed. Then he removed her
pants and underwear, and AAA even lifted her buttocks to make it easier for him to pull the clothes down.
When Carampatana left after having sexual intercourse with AAA, according to Oporto, he then stood up,
opened his pants, and took out his penis so that AAA could perform fellatio on him. Then he proceeded to
have sexual intercourse with AAA. Afterwards, Oporto went outside and slept with Alquizola on the carpet.
After a few minutes, he woke up and went back to the room and again had intercourse with AAA. He went
back to sleep and after some time, he woke up to the sound of AAA vomitting. Shortly thereafter, he made
love with AAA for the third and last time.47 Despite said shameless admission, however, the accused failed
to sufficiently prove that the lack of any physical resistance on AAAs part amounts to approval or
permission. They failed to show that AAA had sexual intercourse with them out of her own volition, and not
simply because she was seriously intoxicated at that time, and therefore could not have given a valid and
intelligent consent to the sexual act.

The RTC also noticed that Fiel, one of the defense witnesses, was showy and exaggerated when testifying,
even flashing a thumbs-up to some of the accused after her testimony, an indication of a rehearsed
witness.48 To be believed, the testimony must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness; it
must be credible in itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as
probable under the attending circumstances.49 cralawlawlib ra ry

When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and
binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence.
The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses deportment and
manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate
testimonial evidence.50 Matters of credibility are addressed basically to the trial judge who is in a better
position than the appellate court to appreciate the weight and evidentiary value of the testimonies of
witnesses who have personally appeared before him.51 The appellate courts are far detached from the
details and drama during trial and have to rely solely on the records of the case in its review. On the matter
of credence and credibility of witnesses, therefore, the Court acknowledges said limitations and recognizes
the advantage of the trial court whose findings must be given due deference.52 Since the CA and the private
respondents failed to show any palpable error, arbitrariness, or capriciousness on the findings of fact of the
trial court, these findings deserve great weight and are deemed conclusive and binding.53 cra lawlawlib rary

The CA continued, belaboring on the fact that the examining physician found old hymenal laceration on
AAAs private organ. The lack of a fresh hymenal laceration, which is expected to be present when the
alleged sexual encounter is involuntary, could mean that AAA actually consented to the fornication.
According to Dr. Acusta, when sex is consensual, the vagina becomes lubricated and the insertion of the
penis will not cause any laceration. It presumed that complainant, therefore, was no longer innocent
considering the presence of old hymenal laceration that could have resulted from her previous sexual
encounters. The defense, however, failed to show that AAA was sexually promiscuous and known for
organizing or even joining sex orgies. It must be noted that AAA was a minor, barely 17 years old at the
time of the incident, having just graduated from high school on that same day. In a similar case,54 the
Court held: chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry

x x x Indeed, no woman would have consented to have sexual intercourse with two men or
three, according to Antonio Gallardo in the presence of each other, unless she were a prostitute or
as morally debased as one. Certainly, the record before Us contains no indication that Farmacita, a 14-
year old, first-year high school student, can be so characterized. On the contrary, her testimony in court
evinced the simplicity and candor peculiar to her youth. In fact, appellants could not even suggest any
reason why Farmacita would falsely impute to them the commission of the crime charged.55
ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary

No woman, especially one of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her
private parts, and be subjected to public trial and humiliation if her claim were not true.56 And even if she
were indeed highly promiscuous at such a young age, the same could still not prove that no rape was
actually committed. Even a complainant who was a woman of loose morals could still be the victim of rape.
Even a prostitute may be a victim of rape. The victims moral character in rape is immaterial where, as in
this case, it is shown that the victim was deprived of reason or was rendered unconscious through
intoxication to enable the private respondents to have sex with her. Moreover, the essence of rape is the
carnal knowledge of a woman against her consent.57 A freshly broken hymen is not one of its essential
elements. Even if the hymen of the victim was still intact, the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out.
Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the
hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. To repeat, rupture of the hymen or laceration of any part
of the womans genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape.58
cralawlaw lib rary

Neither does AAAs mothers act of hitting her after learning about the rape prove anything. It is a truism
that the workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable, and the
people react differently.59 Different people react differently to a given type of situation, and there is no
standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful
experience.60 At most, it merely indicates the frustration and dismay of a mother upon learning that her
daughter had been defiled after partying late the night before. It is a settled rule that when there is no
showing that private complainant was impelled by improper motive in making the accusation against the
accused, her complaint is entitled to full faith and credence.61 So if AAA in fact consented to the sexual act,
why did she still need to immediately tell her parents about it when she could have just kept it to herself?
Why did she ever have to shout rape? She was not caught in the act of making love with any of the private
respondents,62 nor was she shown to have been in a relationship with any of them of which her family
disapproved.63 She never became pregnant as a result of the deed. And if AAA cried rape to save her
reputation, why would she have to drag the private respondents into the case and identify them as her
rapists? Absent any circumstance indicating the contrary, she brought the charge against the private
respondents simply because she was, in fact, violated and she wants to obtain justice. Her zeal in
prosecuting the case, even after the CA had already acquitted the private respondents, evinces the truth
that she merely seeks justice for her honor that has been debased.64 Unfortunately, the CA chose to ignore
these telling pieces of evidence. Its findings are against the logic and effect of the facts as presented by
AAA in support of her complaint,65 contrary to common human experience, and in utter disregard of the
relevant laws and jurisprudence on the crime of rape.
Lastly, the trial court pronounced that Alquizola was not part of the conspiracy because his participation in
the crime was uncertain,66 citing People v. Lobrigo.67 It found that his participation was not in furtherance
of the plan, if any, to commit the crime of rape.68 The Court, however, finds that the RTC erred in ruling
that Alquizolas liability is not of a conspirator, but that of a mere accomplice. To establish conspiracy, it is
not essential that there be proof as to previous agreement to commit a crime, it being sufficient that the
malefactors shall have acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. Conspiracy is proved if there is
convincing evidence to sustain a finding that the malefactors committed an offense in furtherance of a
common objective pursued in concert.69 Proof of conspiracy need not even rest on direct evidence, as the
same may be inferred from the collective conduct of the parties before, during or after the commission of
the crime indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the
offense.70 cralawlawl ibra ry

In Lobrigo, the Court declared: chanRob lesvi rtua lLawl ibra ry

We note that the testimonies of witnesses with respect to Gregorio's and Dominador's participation in the
crime conflict on material points.

Doubt exists as to whether Gregorio and Dominador were carrying weaponsduring the mauling and
whether they participated in the mauling by more than just boxing the victim. Noel stated that they did
not, Domingo stated that they did.

In conspiracy, evidence as to who administered the fatal blow is not necessary. In this case, the rule is not
applicable because conspiracy with respect to Gregorio and Dominador is not proven. Their exact
participation in the crime is uncertain.71 (Emphasis Supplied)

In People v. Dela Torre,72 the Court upheld the findings of the lower courts that there was conspiracy: chanRoblesvi rtua lLawl ibra ry

The RTC held that:

While [it] is true that it was only Leo Amoroso who actually ravished the victim based on the testimony of
the private complainant that Amoroso succeeded in inserting his penis to her private parts and that
Reynaldo dela Torre and Ritchie Bisaya merely kissed her and fondled her private parts, accused [D]ela
Torre can likewise be held liable for the bestial acts of Amoroso as it is quite apparent that the three of them
conspired and mutually helped one another in raping the young victim.

The Court of Appeals held that:

[W]hile [Dela Torre] did not have carnal knowledge with [AAA], his tacit and spontaneous participation and
cooperation of pulling her towards the parked jeep, molesting her and doing nothing to prevent the
commission of the rape, made him a co-conspirator. As such, he was properly adjudged as a principal
in the commission of the crime.73
ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary

Here, unlike in the foregoing case of Lobrigo, Alquizolas participation in the crime is not at all uncertain. 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. He did not do anything to stop the bestial acts of his companions. He even admitted
to kissing AAAs 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. While it is true that the RTC
found Alquizola guilty as mere accomplice, when he appealed from the decision of the trial court,74 he
waived the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and threw the whole case open to the review of
the appellate court, which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate, whether
favorable or unfavorable to the accused-appellant.75 cralawlawli bra ry

Finally, the Court notes that although the prosecution filed only a single Information, it, however, actually
charged the accused of several rapes. As a general rule, a complaint or information must charge only one
offense, otherwise, the same is defective.76 The rationale behind this rule prohibiting duplicitous complaints
or informations is to give the accused the necessary knowledge of the charge against him and enable him to
sufficiently prepare for his defense. The State should not heap upon the accused two or more charges which
might confuse him in his defense.77 Non-compliance with this rule is a ground78 for quashing the duplicitous
complaint or information under Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and the accused may raise the
same in a motion to quash before he enters his plea,79 otherwise, the defect is deemed waived.80 The
accused herein, however, cannot avail of this defense simply because they did not file a motion to quash
questioning the validity of the Information during their arraignment. Thus, they are deemed to have waived
their right to question the same. Also, where the allegations of the acts imputed to the accused are merely
different counts specifying the acts of perpetration of the same crime, as in the instant case, there is no
duplicity to speak of.81 There is likewise no violation of the right of the accused to be informed of the
charges against them because the Information, in fact, stated that they took turns in having carnal
knowledge against the will of AAA on March 25, 2004.82 Further, allegations made and the evidence
presented to support the same reveal that AAA was indeed raped and defiled several times. Here, according
to the accused themselves, after undressing AAA, Carampatana positioned himself in between her legs and
had intercourse with her. On the other hand, Oporto admitted that he had sexual intercourse with AAA
three times. When two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused
fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved,
and impose upon him the proper penalty for each offense.83 Carampatana, Oporto, and Alquizola can then
be held liable for more than one crime of rape, or a total of four (4) counts in all, with conspiracy extant
among the three of them during the commission of each of the four violations. Each of the accused shall
thus be held liable for every act of rape committed by the other. But while Oporto himself testified that he
inserted his sexual organ into AAAs mouth, the Court cannot convict him of rape through sexual assault
therefor because the same was not included in the Information. This is, however, without prejudice to the
filing of a case of rape through sexual assault as long as prescription has not yet set in.

Anent the appropriate penalty to be imposed, rape committed by two or more persons is punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death under Article 266-B of the RPC. But in view of the presence of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender and the absence of an aggravating circumstance to offset the same, the
lighter penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon them,84 for each count. With regard to Oporto,
appreciating in his favor the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the proper imposable penalty
upon him is reclusion temporal, being the penalty next lower to reclusion perpetua to death. Being a
divisible penalty, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
Oporto can be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty the minimum of which shall be within the range of
prision mayor (the penalty next lower in degree to reclusion temporal) and the maximum of which shall be
within the range of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, there being the ordinary mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender, and there being no aggravating circumstance.85 With that, the Court
shall impose the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, for each count
of rape committed.86 However, Oporto shall be entitled to appropriate disposition under Section 51, R.A.
No. 9344,87 which extends even to one who has exceeded the age limit of twenty-one (21) years, so long as
he committed the crime when he was still a child,88and provides for the confinement of convicted children as
follows:89
c ralawlaw lib rary

Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and Other Training Facilities.
A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her
sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training
facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with
the DSWD.

Hence, in the proper execution of judgment by the lower court, the foregoing provision should be taken into
consideration by the judge in order to accord children in conflict with the law, who have already gone
beyond twenty-one (21) years of age, the proper treatment envisioned by law.

As to their civil liability, all of them shall pay AAA the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another
P50,000.00 as moral damages, in each case. Exemplary damages of P30,000.00 shall likewise be imposed
by way of an example and to deter others from committing the same bestial acts.

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. The Court
hereby renders judgment:

a) Finding accused-respondent Raymund Carampatana GUILTY beyond

reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of rape, and the Court hereby
sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each
case;
b) Finding accused-respondent Joefhel Oporto GUILTY beyond
 reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of rape, and the Court hereby
sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment
from six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to
twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as
maximum, in each case; and
c) Finding accused-respondent Moises Alquizola GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of rape, and the Court hereby
sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each
case.

The Court hereby ORDERS the accused-respondents to pay AAA, jointly and severally, the amounts of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, for
each of the four (4) counts of rape. The case is REMANDED to the court of origin for its appropriate action
in accordance with Section 51 of Republic Act No. 9344.

Let the records of this case be forwarded to the court of origin for the execution of judgment.

SO ORDERED. chanroblesvi rtua llawli bra ry