PEOPLE v. LINO P.

ALEJANDRO
G.R. No. 223099
January 11, 2018
(legal effect of promulgation)

Facts:

1.) Accused-appellant was charged with two counts of rape, defined and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the
Revised Penal Code, in relation to Republic Act No. 83693 , of a 12-year old minor, AAA.4 Upon arraignment, accused-appellant
entered a plea of not guilty and trial ensued.

2.) During trial, AAA testified that accused-appellant followed her, grabbed her, and brought her to the back of a school. There,
accused-appellant removed AAA's shorts and t-shirt, laid on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. Two months later,
accused-appellant went inside AAA's house through a window one night, undressed himself and AAA, and inserted his penis inside
her vagina. On both occasions, accused-appellant threatened to kill AAA if she told anybody what had happened. AAA eventually
told her mother, BBB, about the incident. BBB brought her to the Municipal Health Office where she was examined by Dr. CCC. Dr.
CCC testified that she found, among others, deep, healed, old and superficial lacerations in the hymen of AAA and concluded that
these indicated positive sexual intercourse.7

3.) Accused-appellant, through his counsel, manifested in open court that he would no longer present any evidence for the defense
and submitted the case for decision.

4.) The RTC promulgated a Decision acquitting the accused-appellant. On the same day, however, the RTC recalled the said decision.

5.) Accused-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration10 arguing that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory
and can neither be withdrawn nor modified, because to do so would place an accused-appellant in double jeopardy. RTC denied the
Motion.

6.) Accused-appellant appealed to the CA, contending that the R TC gravely erred in recalling its previously promulgated decision
acquitting the accused-appellant; and for convicting the accused-appellant despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.15

7.) The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that there was no error in the recall of the acquittal. The CA dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the conviction of the accused. Hence, petition for review.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the case and affirming the conviction of the accused.

Ruling:

In our jurisdiction, We adhere to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. 20

A mere manifestation also will not suffice in assailing a judgment of acquittal. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
should have been filed. A judgment of acquittal may only be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules. If the
petition, regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary review of the findings of the court a quo, the constitutional
right of the accused against double jeopardy would be violated.

In this case, the acquittal was not even questioned on the basis of grave abuse of discretion. It was only through a supposed mere
manifestation of the prosecutor, a copy of which was not in the records, that the RTC was apprised of the supposed mistake it
committed.

Too elementary is the rule that a decision once final is no longer susceptible to amendment or alteration except to correct errors
which are clerical in· nature, to clarify any ambiguity caused by an omission or mistake in the dispositive portion or to rectify a
travesty of justice brought about by a moro-moro or mock trial.1âwphi1 A final decision is the law of the case and is immutable and
unalterable regardless of any claim of error or incorrectness.
In criminal cases, a judgment of acquittal is immediately final upon its promulgation. It cannot be recalled for correction or
amendment except in the cases already mentioned nor withdrawn by another order reconsidering the dismissal of the case since the
inherent power of a court to modify its order or decision does not extend to a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case.

In this case, the RTC was reminded of the fact that private complainant AAA testified during the trial, only after it had already
rendered and promulgated the judgment of acquittal. The R TC then realized that had AAA's testimony been taken into account, the
case would have had a different outcome. Consequently, the RTC issued an Order recalling the judgment of acquittal for the purpose
of rectifying its error, and thereafter, rendered a Decision convicting the accused-appellant for two counts of rape. This, however,
cannot be countenanced for a contrary ruling would transgress the accused-appellant's constitutionally-enshrined right against
double jeopardy.