PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. vs BIENVINIDO UDANG, SR.

y
SEVILLA
G.R. No. 210161, 10 January 2018, THIRD DIVISION (Leonen, J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

Prosecution for the same act is not prohibited. What is forbidden is prosecution
for the same offense. Hence, the mere filing of the 2 sets of information does not itself
give rise to double jeopardy.

FACTS

On December 2003, at more or less 9:00 o'clock in the evening, at Lumbia,

On December 8, 2005, 2 Informations for child abuse were filed against Udang
before the RTC of Cagayan de Oro in Violation of Article 266-A in relation to Sec. 5 (b)
of R.A. 7610. Udang pleaded not guilty to both charges. Joint trial then ensued. Dr.
Darlene T. Revelo of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Northern
Mindanao Medical Center, as witness for the prosecution, found that AAA had hymenal
lacerations in the 4, 7, and 10 o'clock positions, as well as "excoriations" or reddish
superficial scratched marks between her thighs and genitalia. These lacerations "could
have been caused by trauma, frictions, infections, and also sexual intercourse."
Although in AAA's case, the hymenal lacerations were old and already healed.
 For the defense, Betty, denied drinking with AAA. She alleged that AAA only
wanted to get back at her father for having AAA arrested after she was caught grappling
with Betty's grandmother because the latter tried to stop AAA from sniffing rugby inside
Udang's house. Monera Gandawali and Emirald Orcales, fellow inmates of AAA at the
Cagayan de Oro City Jail also testified. Gandawali testified that AAA disclosed that she
was never actually raped by Udang and that it was actually her stepfather who wanted
to implicate him. Orcales testified that AAA disclosed that it was not Udang but a
security guard who had raped her and that it was AAA's mother who had forced her to
testify against Udang in retaliation for her arrest for sniffing rugby. While Udang denied
ever raping AAA. He testified that he was at home with his mother and other siblings at
the time of the alleged incident in September 2002 and in December 2003. He asserted
that at 9:00 p.m., he reported for duty as barangay tanod.

The RTC found for the prosecution and convicted Udang of rape under Article
266-A(l) of the Revised Penal Code. It ratiocinated that while the allegations in the first
and second Informations satisfied the elements of rape under the first and third
paragraphs of Article 266-A, respectively, the charges can only be 1 for rape under the
first paragraph of Article 266-A because an accused cannot be prosecuted twice for a
single criminal act.

Udang appealed before the Court of Appeals. He claimed that the judge who
penned the Decision, Judge Richard D. Mordeno was not the judge who personally
heard the witnesses testify therefore, was not in the position to rule on the credibility of
AAA. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in toto.

ISSUES:
1. Whether Judge Mordeno was in the position to rule on the credibility of the
witnesses
2. Whether the trial court's ruling that charging Udang with both rape, under Article
266-A(l) of the Revised Penal Code, and sexual abuse, under Section 5(b) of
Republic Act No. 7610, would violate his right against double jeopardy.
3. Whether or not accused-appellant, Bienvinido Udang, Sr. y Sevilla, was correctly
convicted of rape punished under the first paragraph of Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code.

RULING:

1. Yes. The trial judge enjoys the opportunity to observe, first hand, the aids for an
accurate determination of the credibility of a witness such as the witness' deportment
and manner of testifying, the witness' furtive glance, blush of conscious shame,
hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of
an oath. However, inevitable circumstances-the judge's death, retirement,
resignation, transfer, or removal from office-may intervene during the pendency of
the case. Udang's argument is impracticable and cannot be accepted as this would
mean that every case where the judge had to be replaced pending decision would
have to be refiled and retried so that the judge who hears the witnesses testify and
the judge who writes the decision would be the same. The Court explained that with
no showing of any irregularity in the transcript of records, it is presumed to be a
"complete, authentic record of everything that transpire[ d] during the trial, which is
sufficient for Judge Mordeno to have evaluated the credibility of the witnesses, and
to reach a just and fair conclusion.

2. No. For there to be a double jeopardy, a first jeopardy must have attached prior to
the second; the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and a second jeopardy is
for the same offense as that in the first. A first jeopardy has attached if: first, there
was a "valid indictment"; second, this indictment was made before a competent
court; third, after the accused's arraignment; fourth, when a valid plea has been
 entered; and lastly, when the accused was acquitted or convicted, or the case was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. If consent was given
by the accused, there would be a waiver of the right against double jeopardy.

The provisions show that rape and sexual abuse are 2 separate crimes with distinct
elements. The "force, threat, or intimidation" or deprivation of reason or
unconsciousness required in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code is not the
same as the "coercion or influence" required in Section 5(b) of Republic Act No.
7610. A single criminal act may give rise to a multiplicity of offenses. Prosecution for
the same act is not prohibited. What is forbidden is prosecution for the same
offense. Hence, the mere filing of the 2 sets of information does not itself give rise to
double jeopardy.

3. No. Based on the Informations, Udang was charged with two (2) counts of sexual
abuse punished under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610. Hence, he could only
be convicted of sexual abuse under the Informations filed in this case and not for
rape under the Revised Penal Code. Upon examination of the evidence presented,
the Court finds Udang guilty of 2 counts of sexual abuse.