People v Judge Asis & Abordo (2010, G.R. No. 173089)

 Facts:

 

            Abordo was on his way home when private complainants Majait, Calvez, and Montes met him. Abordo shot Majait and Calvez and Montes was unhurt. 

            The RTC acquitted Abordo on the grounds of lack of intent to kill and no treachery and evident premeditation. As such, the RTC only held Abordo accountable for serious physical injuries and less physical injuries. 

            The OSG filed a petition for certiorari (Rule 65) before the CA but was dismissed by the latter for wrong remedy. 

 

Issue:

1.     W/N the CA mistaken in dismissing the petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

2.     W/N the petition for certiorari placed the accused in double jeopardy. 

3.     W/N there was grave abuse of discretion by the respondent Court.

 

Held: 

 

1.     The CA was mistaken in dismissing the petition for certiorari.

 

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the remedy to question a verdict of acquittal whether at the trial court or at the appellate level on the grounds of lack or excess of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion.

 

Our jurisdiction adheres to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. 

 

By way of exception, a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition for certiorari upon clear showing that the lower court, in acquitting the accused, committed not merely reversible errors of judgment but also grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process, thus rendering the assailed judgment void. 

 

2.     Such dismissal order, being considered void judgment, does not result in jeopardy. Thus, when the order of dismissal is annulled or set aside by an appellate court in an original special civil action via certiorari, the right of the accused against double jeopardy is not violated.

 

3.     There was no abuse of discretion nor excess or lack of jurisdiction.

 

No error of jurisdiction can be attributed to public respondent in her assessment of the evidence. She considered all the evidence adduced by the parties and the decision was arrived at only after all the evidence was considered, weighed and passed upon. In such a case, any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari. 

 

Two kinds of error: error of judgment (one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction) and error of jurisdiction (one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction). 

 

The error of jurisdiction is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors by the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, and its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law.