DIGEST/ GESELLE MARIE SAGUIN / CRUZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

 G.R. No. 224974, July 03, 2017 MARVIN CRUZ AND FRANCISCO CRUZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS BONDSMAN, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts: 

    This is a  dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed by Marvin Cruz (Cruz) and his bondsman, Francisco Cruz (Francisco) for being the wrong remedy. They filed the Petition before the Court of Appeals to assail the RTC's denial of their Motion to Release Cash Bond after the criminal case against Cruz was dismissed. In this case, the private complainant in criminal case subsequent filed an Affidavit of Desistance stating that he was no longer interested in pursuing the case. 

    The Assistant City Prosecutor filed a motion to dismiss that later on granted by the RTC. Afterwhich, the bondsman filed a motion t release the cash bond. But, the RTC denied the motion on the ground that the case was dismissed through the ground of desistance and not through acquittal. Thus, it was denied. However,  Cruz and Francisco filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Motion to Release Cash Bond.

    The  CA rendered a Decision dismissing the Petition. They contend that the complainant should have filed an appeal, instead of a petition for certiorari, to question the denial of their Motion to Release Cash Bond. It further stated that it could not treat the Petition for Certiorari as an appeal since the period for appeal had lapsed before its filing. Then, they filed a Motion for Reconsideration but this was denied. 

    Petitioners insist that the filing of a petition for certiorari was proper since the RTC's denial of their Motion to Release Cash Bond amounted to grave abuse of discretion. They said under Rule 114, Section 2221 of the Rules of Court, bail is deemed automatically cancelled upon the dismissal of the case regardless of whether the case was dismissed through acquittal or desistance. 

    The Office of the Solicitor General, however, points out that while Rule 114, Section 22 calls for automatic cancellation, the cancellation is without prejudice to any liabilities on the bond. Thus, it posits that while the cancellation is automatic, the release of the bond is still subject to further proceedings. It adds that if the trial court erred in dismissing petitioners' Motion to Release Cash Bond, the error is "perhaps . . . a mistake in the application of the law" and not grave abuse of discretion, which should not be the subject of a petition for certiorari. 

Issue: 

     Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for being the wrong remedy to question the denial of a motion to release cash bond. 

Ruling: 

    The court ruled that the writ of certiorari is not issued to correct every error that may have been committed by lower courts and tribunals. It is a remedy specifically to keep lower courts and tribunals within the bounds of their jurisdiction. In our judicial system, the writ is issued to prevent lower courts and tribunals from committing grave abuse of discretion in excess of their jurisdiction. Further, the writ requires that there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and  adequate remedy available to correct the error. 

    Thus, certiorari may not be issued if the error can be the subject of an ordinary appeal. An essential requisite for filing a petition for certiorari is the allegation that the judicial tribunal acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In order to determine whether the CA erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari for being the wrong remedy, it is necessary to find out whether the Regional Trial Court acted with grave abuse of discretion as to warrant the filing of a petition for certiorari against it. Under the law,  Bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled in three (3) instances: (1) the acquittal of the accused, (2) the dismissal of the case, or (3) the execution of the judgment of conviction. The Rules of Court do not limit the cancellation of bail only upon the acquittal of the accused. 

    The Office of the Solicitor General made the same observation in its Comment before the Court of Appeals. Such ruling, however, has no legal basis. In fact, the provision of Section 22, Rule 114 is clear: the dismissal of the criminal case results to the automatic cancellation of the bail bond. Non-compliance with the Rules of Court is not, as the Office of the Solicitor General asserts, a mere error of judgment. It constitutes grave abuse of discretion. 

     When a court or tribunal renders a decision tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the proper remedy is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Considering that the trial court blatantly disregarded Rule 114, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, petitioners' remedy was the filing of a petition for certiorari with the proper court. 

     Thus, a party may still file a petition for certiorari in instances where the lower court commits grave abuse of discretion in excess of jurisdiction. The automatic cancellation of bail, however, does not always result in the immediate release of the bail bond to the accused. 

    Instead of addressing the merits of the case, the CA  instead chose to focus on procedural technicalities, dismissing the petition for certiorari based on cases that did not actually prohibit the filing of a petition for certiorari. While procedural rules are necessary for the speedy disposition of justice, its indiscriminate application should never be used to defeat the substantial rights of litigants. Hence, the decision are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.