ABC vs. People of the Philippines

A typographical error in the fallo of a judgment that acquits an accused for a crime that the body of the decision clearly finds to have been proven does not trigger double jeopardy; the body of the decision controls where the error is indisputable, and no valid acquittal attaches to the mistaken entry.

AAA, a 10-year-old girl, spent her school vacation at the house of her grandmother in Baguio City. Petitioner ABC, her grandfather, also resided there. During the visit, AAA was molested. The prosecution subsequently filed three Informations against petitioner: one for Acts of Lasciviousness (Criminal Case No. 37118-R) for making a “push and pull” motion on the child’s vagina and mashing her breast; and two for Sexual Assault — Criminal Case No. 37119-R for inserting a finger into the child’s anal orifice, and Criminal Case No. 37120-R for inserting a finger into her vagina.

• The Charges: Three Informations were filed against petitioner ABC, the grandfather of AAA, a 10-year-old child. Criminal Case No. 37118-R charged Acts of Lasciviousness for making a “push and pull” motion on AAA’s vagina and mashing her breast. Criminal Case No. 37119-R charged Sexual Assault by inserting a finger into AAA’s anal orifice. Criminal Case No. 37120-R charged Sexual Assault by inserting a finger into AAA’s vagina. The Informations alleged the aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship.
• Trial and Testimony: AAA testified that she was 10 years old and vacationing at her grandmother’s house in Baguio City when petitioner began molesting her. She identified petitioner in court and recounted that he fondled her breasts and vagina. Using anatomically correct dolls, AAA demonstrated how petitioner placed his hand inside her underwear, groped her genitals, and inserted his forefinger into her vagina. The medico-legal officer’s and social welfare officer’s corroborating testimonies were dispensed with by stipulation. Petitioner waived his right to testify.
• Family Court Consolidated Judgment: The Family Court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the acts alleged in Criminal Case No. 37118-R (push and pull motion and breast mashing), and that among the two Sexual Assault charges, only the insertion of a finger into AAA’s vagina was established. The body of the decision explicitly concluded that petitioner committed Sexual Assault by digitally penetrating AAA’s genitalia. Due to a typographical error, the dispositive portion stated that petitioner was “GUILTY” in Criminal Case No. 37119-R and “NOT GUILTY” in Criminal Case No. 37120-R, inverting the factual findings.
• CA Ruling on Appeal: The Court of Appeals treated the error as clerical and corrected it. The CA acquitted petitioner in Criminal Case No. 37119-R (anal orifice), and convicted him in Criminal Case No. 37120-R (vaginal insertion), imposing the same indeterminate penalty and damages.

• Double Jeopardy: Petitioner argued that the Family Court’s dispositive portion acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 37120-R; therefore, any subsequent conviction in that same case, including the CA’s correction, violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy.
• Incredibility of Witness: Petitioner contended that AAA’s testimony contained inconsistencies and lapses that fatally undermined her credibility, rendering the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction.

• Clerical Error and Validity of Conviction: The People of the Philippines maintained that the discrepancy between the body and the fallo was a mere typographical error that could be corrected without offending double jeopardy, as the body of the Family Court’s decision clearly and unquestionably found guilt for the vaginal assault charged in Criminal Case No. 37120-R.
• Credibility of Child-Victim: The People asserted that the trial court’s assessment of AAA’s testimony as spontaneous, natural, and consistent was entitled to great weight, especially given her tender age and the absence of improper motive.

• Double Jeopardy: Whether the correction of the typographical error in the dispositive portion — resulting in the conviction of petitioner under Criminal Case No. 37120-R despite a prior entry of acquittal in that docket number — violated petitioner’s right against double jeopardy.
• Credibility of Victim: Whether the testimony of the 10-year-old private complainant was incredible and riddled with material inconsistencies such that the conviction should be overturned.

• Double Jeopardy: Double jeopardy did not attach because the fourth requisite — a valid judgment of acquittal — was absent. The body of the Family Court’s Consolidated Judgment was unequivocal: the only act proven was the digital penetration of AAA’s vagina, the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 37120-R. The acquittal written in the fallo for that docket number was a patent clerical error, irreconcilable with the court’s express findings and conclusions. Under the rule in Cobarrubias v. People, where the body of a decision makes unmistakably clear that a mistake exists in the dispositive portion, the body prevails. Consequently, no valid acquittal in Criminal Case No. 37120-R ever existed, and its correction did not place petitioner twice in jeopardy.
• Credibility of Victim: The factual findings of the Family Court, subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were accorded great respect. AAA’s testimony was straightforward, categorical, and positively identified petitioner as the perpetrator. As a child-victim of tender years, her account carried full weight and credit; a young girl’s revelation of sexual abuse, accompanied by her willingness to submit to medical examination and public trial, cannot be lightly dismissed as fabrication. Petitioner’s uncorroborated denial could not overcome the positive and credible testimony of the victim. No fact or circumstance of weight was overlooked that would warrant disturbing the lower courts’ assessment of credibility.

• Conflict between fallo and body of decision — The general rule is that the dispositive portion prevails over the body of the decision because the fallo is the final order subject to execution. However, where one can clearly and unquestionably conclude from the body of the decision that the fallo contains a mistake, the body of the decision controls. (Citing Cobarrubias v. People, 612 Phil. 984)
• Requisites of double jeopardy — For double jeopardy to attach under Section 7, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, the following must concur: (1) a valid information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed without his express consent. The absence of any one element prevents jeopardy from attaching.
• Credibility of child-victim testimony — When a girl of tender age and immaturity says she has been raped or sexually assaulted, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that the crime has been committed. Her voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial cannot be easily dismissed as mere concoction. (Citing People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019, and People v. Garcia, 695 Phil. 576)

• “The general rule is that where there is a conflict between the fallo, or the dispositive part, and the body of the decision or order, the fallo prevails on the theory that the fallo is the final order and becomes the subject of execution, while the body of the decision merely contains the reasons or conclusions of the court ordering nothing. However, where one can clearly and unquestionably conclude from the body of the decision that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will prevail.” — This passage from Cobarrubias is the controlling rule on correcting clerical errors in judgments.
• “A young girl’s revelation that she had been raped or sexually assaulted, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out the details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be so easily dismissed as mere concoction.” — Articulates the high value placed on child-victim testimony in sexual offense cases.

• Cobarrubias v. People, 612 Phil. 984 (2009) — Followed. Established that the body of the decision prevails over the fallo when a clerical error is clearly demonstrated. Applied to justify the correction of the docket numbers in the dispositive portion.
• People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019 — Followed. Governed the proper nomenclature of the offense as “Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610,” and the correct amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages at P50,000.00 each.
• People v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 223099, January 11, 2018 — Cited for the requisites of double jeopardy.
• People v. Ambatang, 808 Phil. 236 (2017) — Cited for the rule that factual findings of the trial court on witness credibility are accorded respect and not disturbed on appeal, especially when affirmed by the appellate court.

• Article 266-A, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code — Defines Sexual Assault as the insertion of any instrument or object, or of a finger, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. Applied as the principal felony.
• Section 5(b), Article III, Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) — Provides the penalty when the victim of sexual assault is a child under 12 years old. The provision determined the imposable penalty and, in conjunction with Article 266-A, framed the accurate nomenclature of the offense.
• Section 7, Rule 117, Rules of Criminal Procedure — Enumerates the requisites for double jeopardy to attach. The fourth element (prior conviction or acquittal) was found lacking due to the nullity of the erroneous acquittal entry.

Senior Associate Justice Perlas-Bernabe (Chairperson), Associate Justice Hernando, Associate Justice Delos Santos, and Associate Justice Gaerlan (designated additional member per Special Order No. 2780).