G.R. No. 261422 (Formerly UDK-17206), November 13, 2023
AAA261422, A MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY YYY261422, PETITIONER, VS. XXX261422, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The respondent, XXX261422, was charged with two counts of rape and one count of acts of lasciviousness against the minor petitioner, AAA261422. The prosecution alleged that the incidents occurred in December 2017 and January 2018. AAA, then 13 years old, testified that XXX, the common-law spouse of her mother, sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions while she was asleep in their shared home. A medico-legal examination confirmed a hymenal laceration. The defense denied the accusations, claiming the charges were fabricated due to familial disapproval of his relationship with AAA’s mother.
The Regional Trial Court acquitted XXX261422 of all charges. The trial court found AAA’s testimony inconsistent and doubted the plausibility of the crimes occurring undetected in a small house. The petitioner, through her aunt YYY, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, directly assailing the acquittal. The CA dismissed the petition outright, ruling that the petitioner lacked legal standing to file the petition without the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General, which represents the People in criminal proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of legal standing due to the absence of the OSG’s conformity.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court reversed the CA’s dismissal and remanded the case for substantive review. The legal logic is anchored on the distinct nature of the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 and the statutory rights of offended parties, particularly minors, in sexual abuse cases under Republic Act No. 7610 (the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act).
An acquittal rendered by the trial court is generally final and unappealable, as it would place the accused in double jeopardy. However, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy available not to challenge the factual findings or the correctness of the judgment, but to assail the trial court’s jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The conformity of the OSG is required for an appeal by the People, but a Rule 65 petition is not an appeal; it is an original action questioning the lower court’s judicial process. More critically, Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610 explicitly grants the offended party, or their guardian, the right to initiate a separate civil action for damages and, pursuant to established jurisprudence, to file a petition for certiorari to question a void judgment. The trial court’s alleged complete disregard of AAA’s credible testimony and the legal presumption of minority, if proven, could constitute grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, the minor victim, through her representative, possessed the legal personality to file the certiorari petition independently to vindicate this statutory right, and the CA should have resolved the case on its merits.