People vs. Mirandilla, [GR No. 186417] Case Digest

 

People vs. Mirandilla,

GR No. 186417

 

Facts:

Mirandilla was charged before RTC Legazpi City with kidnapping with rape, four counts of rape, and rape through sexual assault. Mirandilla contended that he could not have kidnapped and raped the victim, AAA, whom he claimed to be his live-in partner.

RTC rendered its decision convicting Mirandilla of kidnapping, four counts of rape, and one count of rape through sexual assault. CA affirmed with modification the RTC ruling, convicting Mirandilla. It found him guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape (instead of kidnapping as the RTC ruled), four counts of rape, and one count of rape by sexual assault.

 

Issue:

Whether or not CA erred in modifying the decision of the RTC.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

An appeal in criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question, including one not raised by the parties. This was our pronouncement in the 1902 landmark case of U.S. v. Abijan, which is now embodied in Section 11, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court:

SEC 11. Scope of Judgment. – The Court of Appeals may reverse, affirm, or modify the judgment and increase or reduce the penalty imposed by the trial court, remand the case to the Regional Trial Court for new trial or retrial, or dismiss the case.

The reason behind this rule is that when an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court, which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable to the appellant.