G.R. No. 237489, August 27, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. DOMINGO ARCEGA Y SIGUENZA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The respondent, Domingo Arcega y Siguenza, was charged and convicted by the trial court with the crime of attempted rape. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the conviction to acts of lasciviousness. The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to assail the CA’s decision, which effectively acquitted the respondent of attempted rape.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to assail the Court of Appeals’ decision acquitting the respondent of attempted rape.

RULING

No. The petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is not the proper remedy. The acquittal of the respondent for attempted rape by the CA is final and unappealable due to the constitutional right against double jeopardy. The only narrow exception to challenge such an acquittal is through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which requires a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as when the prosecution was denied due process or the trial was a sham. The concurring opinion stresses that this exception, as exemplified in Galman v. Sandiganbayan, does not apply in this case, as there is no allegation or evidence that the prosecution’s right to due process was violated or that the proceedings were a mockery. Therefore, any error in the CA’s appreciation of evidence, no matter how grave, does not convert the judgment into one reviewable by certiorari, and the petition must be denied.