G.R. No. 261422 – AAA261422, a minor and represented by YYY261422, petitioner, vs. XXX261422, respondent.

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.

Rule Synopsis

As a general rule, the complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a petition for certiorari to question the judgments or orders involving the criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute, unless made with the OSG’s conformity. However, this guideline laid down in the case of Austria v. AAA and BBB (G.R. No. 205275, June 28, 2022) does not apply to cases resolved prior to the finality of Austria on March 24, 2023.

Facts

In three (3) separate Informations, XXX261422 (XXX) was charged with two counts of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, and one count of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act (RA) 7610.

The prosecution alleged the following:

(a) AAA was born on November 2, 2004 as shown in her Certificate of Live Birth;

(b) December 25, 2017, AAA was awakened when XXX covered her mouth with his hand, which he replaced with a pillow. He unzipped her shorts and inserted his finger into her vagina several times. He also sucked her breasts;

(c) In the second week of January 2018, XXX2 did the same things to her. This time, he used also his penis to touch her thigh;

(d) In the third week of January 2018, AAA awoke when her hand touched something. She then saw XXX, who told her not to tell anyone. He again did the same things to her;

(e) Through a Medico Legal Certificate, it was shown that AAA suffered hymenal lacerations.

XXX denied the above-state allegations. He countered that it was impossible for him to have molested AAA because during those times, CCC (his live-in partner) was also home.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted XXX of the charges against him. AAA filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA), which the latter dismissed. The CA also denied AAA’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Hence, the instant petition before the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. May the petition for certiorari filed by AAA, i.e., the complainant, which sought reconsideration of the acquittal of XXX in the subject criminal cases, prosper, albeit the OSG’s conformity thereto was never sought nor obtained?
2. May the Supreme Court entertain AAA’s petition for certiorari without violating XXX’s without violating the rule against double jeopardy?
3. Should XXX be found guilty? If so, of what crime/s?

Ruling and Discussion

1. Yes. The petition for certiorari filed by AAA seeking reconsideration of XXX’s acquittal may prosper without the OSG’s conformity. While the guidelines laid down in Austria v. AAA and BBB (G.R. No. 205275, June 28, 2022) require such conformity of the OSG, the same do not apply to the present case.
   
   As a general rule, only the State, through the OSG, has the legal personality to file an appeal relevant to the criminal aspect of the case; the legal personality of the complainant to appeal is limited to the civil aspect only. Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. In criminal actions, the real party in interest is the People of the Philippines, who has the prerogative to prosecute the offense, including the authority to appeal from the accused’s acquittal, the dismissal of the case, and other interlocutory orders relating to the criminal aspect of the case.
   
   Before the trial court, all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. Once the case reaches the CA or the SC, the authority is vested to the Solicitor General (Administrative Code, Section 35 [1], Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV). This is without prejudice to the interest of the private offended party in the civil aspect of the case. Stated otherwise, the complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a petition for certiorari to question the judgments or orders involving the criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute, unless made with the OSG’s conformity.
   
   Here, AAA aims to appeal not her pecuniary interest civilly speaking, but the substantive merits determinative of XXX’s criminal liability.
   
   Ordinarily, AAA’s admitted failure to obtain the OSG’s participation in her appeal of the criminal aspect of the cases a quo justifies the appellate court’s dismissal of her petition following the guidelines laid down in Austria.
   
   The guidelines in Austria are not applicable in this case.
   
   The guidelines in Austria apply prospectively and do not cover the present case, which was resolved by the appellate court on June 25, 2020 prior to the finality of Austria on March 24, 2023. Considering the divergent decisions prior to Austria, the private complainant has legal standing to question the criminal aspect of the case.
   
   Guidelines prior to Austria area applicable to this case.
   
   Prior to Austria, an appeal or petition for certiorari filed solely by the private complainant may prosper even if it questions the criminal aspect of the case if, among others: (a) the State and the private complainant were denied due process; (b) the judge committed grave abuse of discretion and the interest of substantial justice requires giving due course to the appeal or petition; and (c) the case involves special and compelling circumstances which leaves the private complainant no other recourse but to file the appeal or petition alone.
   
   Here: (a) both the People and AAA were denied due process when the trial court issued its judgment which was a mere echo of XXX’s defenses; (b) the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it completely disregarded the prosecution’s evidence, and rendered a verdict of acquittal in violation of the People and AAA’s right to due process. More important, the higher interest of substantial justice and the State policy to protect the best interests of children compels the Court to give due course to AAA’s petition; and (c) the special circumstances surrounding the case left AAA with no option but to pursue the appeal herself. Apart from the trial court’s misfeasance, notable is the inaction of the prosecutor in seeking reconsideration of the acquittal albeit it was rendered with patent irregularities.
2. Yes. The Supreme Court may entertain AAA’s petition for certiorari without violating XXX’s without violating the rule against double jeopardy.
   
   Double jeopardy sets in only upon: (a) a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) a valid plea having been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.
   
   Here, the second requisite is missing. The trial court was ousted of jurisdiction when it violated the People and AAA’s right to due process, hence, it was not a competent court. Where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their jurisdiction.
3. Yes. XXX should be found guilty of three counts of lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
   
   AAA’s straightforward, candid, and categorical testimony deserves weight and credence.
   
   In rape cases, conviction may be warranted based solely on the testimony of the victim, provided that the testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.
   
   Here, the Supreme Court found that AAA’s testimony evinces honesty, candidness, and spontaneity. Apart from her categorical, firm, and unwavering assertions that XXX sexually assaulted her during three occasions, her demeanor and raw emotions as she recounted her ordeal spoke volumes and belied any falsehoods on her part. AAA’s deportment when she was examined, i.e., crying, sobbing, restless, and angry, exhibited genuine reactions that can only be elicited from someone who truly suffered from such traumatic experiences. As such, the Court lends significant weight and credence to AAA’s claims and allegations in her testimony. XXX’s denial and imputation of ill-will against AAA, without more, is insufficient to defeat AAA’s firm testimony.
   
   XXX should be found guilty of three counts of lascivious conduct.
   
   Where the victim is at least 12 years old but below 18 years old acts of sexual assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC, as amended, and acts of lasciviousness under Article 366 of the same law, which also constitute lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, were committed against said victim, the offender shall be held liable for the latter offense as it imposes a higher penalty consistent with the State’s policy to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination.
   
   Here, although the Informations charged XXX both with rape through sexual intercourse, and rape through sexual assault, only the latter was proven by the prosecution’s evidence. Meanwhile, in XXX was also charged with acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act No. 7610.
   
   To warrant a conviction of lascivious conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, the following elements must be established: (a) the accused committed the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (b) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (c) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. “Other sexual abuse” is a broad term that includes all other acts of sexual abuse other than prostitution.
   
   All the elements were established by the prosecution’s evidence: (a) AAA identified XXX in open court as the perpetrator. Specifically, she testified that on two separate occasions, he inserted his finger into her vagina several times and on the third occasion, he was only able to touch her vagina because her mother woke up. During all three instances, he licked and sucked her breasts too; (b) these lascivious acts were committed by XXX against AAA, a child subjected to other sexual abuse. As testified by AAA, during the two incidents, XXX was able to succeed in sexually assaulting her through intimidation. Particularly, he covered her mouth with a pillow or his hand to subdue her and prevent her from shouting, and even threatened to kill her; and (c) AAA was then 13 years old, hence, below 18 years old, as proven by her Certificate of Live Birth, which showed that she was born on November 2, 2004.

dispositive

Petition granted. Resolutions of the CA reversed.