View full case

PEOPLE v. LINO ALEJANDRO Y PIMENTEL

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Lino Alejandro y Pimentel was charged with two counts of rape, committed against a 12-year old minor named AAA. AAA testified during trial that accused-appellant followed her, brought her to the back of a school, removed her clothes, and had sexual intercourse with her. Two months later, accused-appellant went to AAA's house, undressed her, and again had sexual intercourse with her. AAA eventually told her mother about the incidents and was examined by a doctor who found evidence of sexual intercourse. Accused-appellant initially manifested that he would no longer present evidence for the defense. The trial court initially acquitted accused-appellant but later recalled and set aside the acquittal due to an error in considering AAA's testimony. The trial court then found accused-appellant guilty of two counts of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, with modification in the award of damages. Accused-appellant argued that the recall of the acquittal violated his right against double jeopardy.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the recall of the decision of acquittal violates the accused appellant's right against double jeopardy.

  2. Whether or not the manifestation of the public prosecutor is equivalent to a motion for reconsideration of the decision.

  3. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the conviction for rape despite the incredible testimony of the victim.

  4. Whether or not the judge can revise a final judgment of acquittal.

  5. Whether or not the judge's action violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

RULING:

  1. The recall of the decision of acquittal violates the accused appellant's right against double jeopardy. A judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable, and a decision of recall of the acquittal after its finality would transgress the accused appellant's right against double jeopardy. Even though there was an error and misapprehension of facts by the trial court, it had no power to rectify such mistake as the acquittal had already attained finality after valid promulgation.

  2. The manifestation of the public prosecutor is not equivalent to a motion for reconsideration of the decision. The manifestation filed by the public prosecutor cannot be considered as a motion for reconsideration since it only points out that the court overlooked a fact, and not a presentation of additional evidence to prove or strengthen the State's case. A mere manifestation is not enough to assail a judgment of acquittal, and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules should have been filed.

  3. The Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the conviction for rape despite the incredible testimony of the victim. The principle of finality of acquittal applies, and the court cannot overturn the judgment of acquittal based on the credibility of the victim's testimony alone. The exceptions to the rule on double jeopardy do not exist in this case, as there was no deprivation of due process or mistrial, and there was no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court.

  4. No, the judge cannot revise a final judgment of acquittal. A final decision is the law of the case and is immutable and unalterable, except to correct clerical errors, clarify omissions or mistakes, or rectify a travesty of justice resulting from a mock trial. The power of the court to modify its decision does not extend to a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case.

  5. Yes, the judge's action violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The judgment of acquittal in a criminal case is immediately final upon its promulgation and cannot be recalled or withdrawn by another order reconsidering the dismissal of the case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A decision once final is no longer susceptible to amendment or alteration, except for clerical errors, omissions, mistakes, or to rectify a travesty of justice resulting from a mock trial.

  • A judgment of acquittal in a criminal case is immediately final upon its promulgation and cannot be recalled or withdrawn by another order reconsidering the dismissal of the case.

  • Violating the prohibition against double jeopardy constitutes a gross ignorance of the law.