G.R. No. L-80838 November 29, 1988
ELEUTERIO C. PEREZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eleuterio Perez was initially charged with Consented Abduction. After his conviction by the trial court, the Court of Appeals acquitted him in a 1982 decision. However, the appellate court, in its acquittal, noted that his acts constituted “seduction and not abduction,” as he had made promises of marriage to have sexual intercourse with the complainant. Subsequently, in 1983, the complainant filed a new criminal complaint against Perez, this time for Qualified Seduction. Perez moved to quash this second information on grounds of double jeopardy and waiver/estoppel by the complainant, but the Municipal Trial Court denied his motion.
Perez then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court ( G.R. No. 68122 ) challenging the denial. The Supreme Court referred the petition to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), which dismissed it on procedural grounds, ruling it should have been filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Perez complied and filed the petition with the RTC, which also dismissed it. Instead of appealing this RTC dismissal via a notice of appeal, Perez filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. The CA denied this petition, ruling it was an improper remedy and that the RTC’s decision had become final and executory due to his failure to perfect a timely appeal.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that Perez availed of the wrong remedy (petition for review instead of an appeal) from the RTC’s dismissal of his certiorari petition, thereby rendering that dismissal final; and (2) Whether the subsequent charge for Qualified Seduction places Perez in double jeopardy for the same offense of Consented Abduction.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the procedural issue, the Court held that the CA correctly ruled that Perez used the wrong remedy. The RTC’s order dismissing his original petition for certiorari was a final order. The proper remedy from such a final order of the RTC was an appeal by filing a notice of appeal, not a petition for review. Since Perez failed to file a notice of appeal within the reglementary period, the RTC’s decision became final and executory. Compliance with the rules on the manner and period for perfecting an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional; thus, the CA correctly declined to take cognizance of the petition for review.
On the substantive issue of double jeopardy, the Court held that it does not apply. For double jeopardy to attach, the second offense must be the same as the first, or one is necessarily included in the other. Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction are distinct crimes with different elements. The gravamen of Consented Abduction is the infringement of parental authority by taking a woman from her home, while the essence of Qualified Seduction is the violation of the woman’s chastity through abuse of authority or confidence. The fact that the CA, in acquitting Perez of abduction, made an observation about seduction did not constitute a finding of fact binding in a separate prosecution for a different crime. The elements of the two crimes differ, and an acquittal of one is not a bar to prosecution for the other. The Court also found no merit in the claims of waiver, estoppel, or implied pardon by the complainant, as the filing of the second case negated waiver, and the action was filed within the prescriptive period.