Decision
-7-
G.R. No. 228223
rape would reveal that the coitus was committed with her acquiescence
because: (1) she did not offer even a small amount of resistance to the sexual
advances; and (2) she did not shout for help or try to escape from the
perpetrator despite the opportunity to do so. Lastly, he asserts that his alibi
assumes importance in view of the alleged weakness of the evidence for the
prosecution.
In its Comment, respondent People of the Philippines, through the
OSG, asserts that the appeal of the December 11, 2014 Decision of the RTC
threw the entire records of Criminal Case No. 1089 open for review.
Respondent maintains that Pendoy can be properly convicted of as many
offenses as were charged and proven. According to the respondent, the
April 7, 2006 Information contains the averments that Pendoy had committed
acts punishable under paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC). It claims that the elements for both rape and sexual assault were
adequately proven through the credible, consistent and forthright testimony of
AAA, which was corroborated by the medico-legal report issued by Dr.
Pizarras. Respondent prays that the June 24, 2016 Decision of the CA be
affirmed in toto.
The Court's Ruling
We sustain the conviction of Pendoy. The appeal is devoid of merit.
Preliminarily, the Court finds that Pendoy's resort to the special civil
action for Certiorari under Rule 65, in his quest to reverse and set aside the
assailed June 24, 2016 Decision and the October 27, 2016 Resolution of the
CA, is erroneous. Pendoy filed the instant petition designating it in both the
caption and the body as one for "certiorari" contending that the questioned
decision and resolution of the CA were issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Well settled is the rule that
certiorari will lie only when "there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." 10 The general rule is that a
writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to the
aggrieved party. 11 The availability of the right of appeal precludes recourse
to the special civil action for certiorari. In the case at bench, appeal was not
only available to Pendoy but also a speedy and adequate remedy. Also,
Pendoy failed to show circumstances that would warrant a deviation from the
general rule as to make available to him a petition for certiorari in lieu of
making an appeal.
ti(
10
II
Bernardo v. Court ofAppeals, 341 Phil. 413,425 (1997).
Cathay Pacific Steel Corporation v. Court ofAppeals, 531 Phil. 620, 631 (2006).