G.R. No. 246306 , July 26, 2023.
MARIAN REBUTAY SEDANO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This is a dissenting opinion by Justice Singh. The ponencia granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Marian Rebutay Sedano (Rebuta). The dissent argues against this disposition. The case involves multiple counts of qualified trafficking of persons with five minors as victims. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted Rebuta. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA) to assail the acquittal, which the CA granted. Rebuta then filed the present Petition for Review before the Supreme Court. The dissent addresses procedural and substantive issues raised by Rebuta against the OSG’s Rule 65 Petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the OSG’s Petition for Certiorari before the CA was seasonably filed.
2. Whether the OSG’s failure to specify a prayer in its Petition was fatal.
3. Whether the assailment of the RTC’s acquittal via certiorari violates double jeopardy.
4. Whether the warrantless arrest and seizure during the raid were valid.

RULING

1. The Petition was seasonably filed. The OSG filed its Motion for Extension to file the Rule 65 Petition three days after the 60-day period. The CA correctly granted the extension. The subject matter—multiple counts of trafficking of minors—is serious, and the RTC’s error was glaring, constituting compelling reasons to relax procedural rules. Rebuta did not timely oppose the belated filing. The Rules allow relaxation under specific circumstances, such as the importance of the issues involved and the merits of the case.
2. The failure to specify a prayer is patently inadvertent and not fatal. While courts cannot grant relief not prayed for, the OSG’s Petition clearly sought the nullification of the RTC’s Joint Decision for grave abuse of discretion. The filing of a Rule 65 Petition itself implies the prayer to annul the judgment. The omission was inadvertent and did not prejudice Rebuta.
3. No double jeopardy exists because the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion. A judgment of acquittal may be assailed via certiorari under Rule 65 if the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The RTC’s Joint Decision manifestly ignored the law. Under Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208 (The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act), the mere recruitment of a minor for exploitation constitutes trafficking, even without coercive means, and the minor’s consent is irrelevant. The RTC’s acquittal, despite evidence that Rebuta recruited minors for pornographic performances, was a capricious disregard of the law, rendering the judgment void. Thus, certiorari is proper and does not violate double jeopardy.
4. The warrantless arrest and seizure were valid. The raid was conducted based on a warrant. Even assuming warrantless arrest, it was valid under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court as an arrest for a crime “just committed.” Trafficking is a continuing crime. The arrest of Rebuta at the scene, where minors were found performing lewd acts, was lawful. The seizure of evidence was incidental to a lawful arrest.
Conclusion of the Dissent: The Petition for Review on Certiorari should be denied. The CA’s Decision and Resolution granting the OSG’s Petition for Certiorari and nullifying the RTC’s acquittal are correct. There is no substantial reason to warrant the Supreme Court’s exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction. The acquittal blatantly ignored the evidence and the law on qualified trafficking of minors.