G.R. No. 147678-87 July 7 2004 [Judicial Power]
FACTS:
The MTC, Tarlac, Tarlac, Branch 1 found Mateo guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of 10 counts of rape and to indemnify the complainant for
actual and moral damages. Mateo appealed to the CA. Solicitor General assailed
the factual findings of the TC and recommends an acquittal of appellant.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the case should be directly be forwarded to
the Supreme Court by virtue of express provision in the constitution on
automatic appeal where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or death.
RULING:
Up until now, the Supreme Court has assumed the direct
appellate review over all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment (or lower but involving offenses
committed on the same occasion or arising out of the same occurrence that gave
rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty of death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed). The practice finds justification in
the 1987 Constitution –
Article VIII, Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers:
“(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal
or certiorari, as the law or the Rules
of Court may provide, final judgments
and orders of lower courts in:
“x x x x x x x x x
“(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.”
It must be stressed,
however, that the constitutional provision is not preclusive in character, and it does not
necessarily prevent the Court, in the
exercise of its rule-making power, from adding an intermediate appeal or review in favour of
the accused.
In passing, during the deliberations among the
members of the Court, there has been a
marked absence of unanimity on the crucial point of guilt or innocence of herein appellant. Some
are convinced that the evidence would
appear to be sufficient to convict; some would accept the recommendation of acquittal from the
Solicitor General on the ground of
inadequate proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the occasion best demonstrates the typical
dilemma, i.e., the determination and
appreciation of primarily factual matters, which the Supreme Court has had to face with in
automatic review cases; yet, it is the
Court of Appeals that has aptly been given the direct mandate to review factual issues.
