DIGEST/ KRIZABEL MARTINEZ/ PEOPLE vs ASIS

 G.R. No. 173089               August 25, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

vs.

Hon. ENRIQUE C. ASIS, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Biliran Province, Branch 16, and JAIME ABORDO, Respondents.

FACTS

On October 7, 2002, at 12:30AM, respondent Jaime Abordo was riding his motorcycle on his way home. He was met by private complainants Kennard Majait, Joeniel Calvez and Jose Montes. Abordo shot Majait in the leg while Calvez was hit in the lower left side of his abdomen. Montes escaped unhurt.

Abordo was charged with 2 counts of attempted murder and 1 count of frustrated murder before the RTC. The trial court found no treachery and evident premeditation. Abordo was held liable only for Serious Physical Injuries for shooting Calvez and Less Serious Physical Injuries with regard to Majait. The trial court also appreciated four generic mitigating circumstances in favor of Abordo. With respect to the complaint of Montes, Abordo was acquitted.

The RTC dismissed Majait’s motion for reconsideration while Calvez’s motion to withdraw was granted. It also dismissed Calvez’ appeal for not bearing the conformity of the Provincial Prosecutor.

Meanwhile, the OSG filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA but it was dismissed outright.  According to the appellate court, the filing of the petition for certiorari was the wrong remedy. As the State was questioning the verdict of acquittal and findings of lesser offenses by the trial court, the remedy should have been an appeal. Moreover, the petition for certiorari placed the accused in double jeopardy.

ISSUE

Whether or not the appellate court erred in dismissing the petition outright

RULING

Yes. The CA erred in dismissing the petition outright.

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not appeal, is the remedy to question a verdict of acquittal whether at the trial court or at the appellate level. In our jurisdiction, We adhere to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. The rule is that "while certiorari may be availed of to correct an erroneous acquittal, the petitioner in such an extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice."

What the OSG is questioning are errors of judgment. This, however, cannot be resolved without violating Abordo’s constitutionally guaranteed right against double jeopardy. An appellate court in a petition for certiorari cannot review a trial court’s evaluation of the evidence and factual findings. Errors of judgment cannot be raised in a Rule 65 petition as a writ of certiorari can only correct errors of jurisdiction or those involving the commission of grave abuse of discretion. 

Thus, the CA clearly erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed before it by the OSG on the ground that it was the wrong remedy. There is, however, no need for the remand of the case to the CA as the petition for certiorari, on its face, cannot be given due course.