People vs. Asis and Abordo

A judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable, but may be challenged via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 upon a clear showing that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process, rendering the judgment void; certiorari will not lie to correct mere errors of judgment in the evaluation of evidence.

On October 7, 2002, at approximately 12:30 a.m., Jaime Abordo was riding his motorcycle on his way home when he encountered Kennard Majait, Joeniel Calvez, and Jose Montes. An altercation occurred. Abordo shot Majait in the leg and Calvez in the lower left abdomen; Montes fled unharmed. Three separate informations were subsequently filed against Abordo: two counts of attempted murder (for Majait and Montes) and one count of frustrated murder (for Calvez).

• The Incident: On October 7, 2002, at around 12:30 a.m., respondent Jaime Abordo was riding his motorcycle homeward when he met private complainants Kennard Majait, Joeniel Calvez, and Jose Montes. An altercation erupted. Abordo drew a firearm and shot Majait in the leg and Calvez in the lower left side of the abdomen. Montes was unhurt, having escaped.
• Criminal Charges: Abordo was charged with frustrated murder for the shooting of Calvez and two counts of attempted murder for the shootings of Majait and Montes, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. N-2211, N-2212, and N-2213 before Branch 16 of the Regional Trial Court of Biliran Province.
• The RTC Decision: After trial, the RTC found that no treachery or evident premeditation attended the commission of the offenses. The trial court determined that Abordo did not intend to kill the victims and convicted him only of serious physical injuries in N-2211 and less serious physical injuries in N-2212. It additionally appreciated four generic mitigating circumstances in Abordo’s favor. As to the charge involving Montes (N-2213), the RTC acquitted Abordo.
• Procedural Actions after Judgment: The private complainants sought reconsideration on the civil aspect and later moved for moral damages. Calvez filed a notice of appeal covering both the criminal and civil aspects, but did so without the conformity of the Provincial Prosecutor. The RTC dismissed Calvez’s appeal on October 24, 2005 for this defect, and likewise dismissed Majait’s motion for reconsideration.
• OSG’s Intervention: The Chief State Prosecutor indorsed the matter to the OSG at the instance of a relative of Calvez. The OSG thereafter filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, asserting that the RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion in appreciating the evidence and in acquitting Abordo on one charge while imposing only lesser penalties on the others.
• CA’s Outright Dismissal: The appellate court dismissed the petition on the ground that appeal was the appropriate remedy, and that the use of certiorari violated Abordo’s right against double jeopardy. The CA stressed that the prosecution cannot appeal a decision in a criminal case to reverse an acquittal or increase a penalty without placing the accused in double jeopardy.

• Propriety of Certiorari: The OSG argued that the Court of Appeals committed a serious error of law and grave abuse of discretion in dismissing its Rule 65 petition outright, because certiorari is the only available remedy to question the trial court’s acquittal without violating the accused’s right against double jeopardy. The OSG maintained that the RTC’s judgment was contrary to the evidence and applicable law, warranting correction via certiorari.
• Grave Abuse by the RTC: The OSG contended that the trial judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding no intent to kill, in convicting Abordo only of physical injuries, in appreciating four mitigating circumstances, and in acquitting him in Criminal Case No. N-2213. It insisted that the trial court’s factual findings were contrary to the evidence presented.

• Wrong Remedy and Double Jeopardy: Respondent Jaime Abordo sustained the position of the Court of Appeals that the OSG’s petition for certiorari was the wrong remedy because it assailed an acquittal and findings on lesser offenses that should have been challenged through an appeal. Respondents maintained that the petition effectively placed Abordo in double jeopardy, as the prosecution cannot appeal a criminal judgment to reverse an acquittal or to increase a penalty.

• Proper Remedy: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing outright the petition for certiorari on the ground that appeal, not certiorari, was the correct remedy and that certiorari placed the accused in double jeopardy.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in its judgment, such that the OSG’s petition for certiorari would merit a favorable review.

• Proper Remedy: The Court of Appeals clearly erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for being the wrong remedy. A judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable under the finality-of-acquittal doctrine. An exception, however, is recognized: a judgment of acquittal may be assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 upon a clear showing that the trial court, in acquitting the accused, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process, thereby rendering the judgment void. Because an appeal by the prosecution would violate the accused’s right against double jeopardy, certiorari is the proper remedy. The CA therefore committed a serious error in depriving the State of this recourse.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Notwithstanding the procedural error of the CA, the OSG’s petition for certiorari was devoid of merit. The petition did not allege, much less demonstrate, that the prosecution was denied due process. Both parties had been given full opportunity to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and argue their case. The OSG’s submissions merely questioned the trial court’s appreciation of evidence, its credibility assessments, and its factual conclusions — all of which are errors of judgment, not errors of jurisdiction. Certiorari cannot be used to review a trial court’s evaluation of evidence and factual findings. Since no grave abuse of discretion or jurisdictional error was shown, the petition for certiorari could not prosper. A remand of the case to the Court of Appeals was therefore unnecessary, as the certiorari petition would inevitably be denied.

• Finality-of-Acquittal Doctrine — A judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. The prosecution cannot appeal a criminal judgment to reverse an acquittal or to increase the penalty imposed, as doing so would place the accused in double jeopardy. (Citing People v. Court of Appeals, 468 Phil. 1; People v. Uy, 471 SCRA 668.)
• Exception to Finality of Acquittal — Certiorari for Grave Abuse of Discretion — A judgment of acquittal may be challenged via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 when the petitioner clearly shows that the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process, rendering the judgment void. If the judgment is void, jeopardy does not attach. (Citing People v. Uy; People v. Laguio, Jr.; Galman v. Sandiganbayan.)
• Error of Judgment vs. Error of Jurisdiction — An error of judgment is one committed by the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction, such as an improper assessment of evidence or an erroneous conclusion of law based on those facts. An error of jurisdiction is one where the court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction; it will not lie to cure errors of judgment. (Citing People v. Hon. Tria-Tirona, 463 SCRA 462.)

• “Like any other rule, however, the above said rule is not absolute. By way of exception, a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court upon clear showing by the petitioner 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.”
• “An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is 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 and which error 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.”
• “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.”

• People v. Uy, G.R. No. 158157, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 668 — Followed as authority for the rule that an acquittal may be challenged via certiorari upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or denial of due process.
• People v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 128587, March 16, 2007, 518 SCRA 393 — Followed for the principle that a void judgment of dismissal/acquittal does not result in double jeopardy, and certiorari is the proper remedy.
• Galman v. Sandiganbayan, 228 Phil. 42 (1986) — Cited as an instructive exception where the right to due process was violated, rendering the acquittal void and subject to certiorari.
• People v. Hon. Tria-Tirona, G.R. No. 130106, July 15, 2005, 463 SCRA 462 — Applied for the distinction between error of judgment and error of jurisdiction, holding that certiorari cannot correct the former.
• Metro Eye Security, Inc. v. Salsono, G.R. No. 167637, September 28, 2007, 534 SCRA 375 — Cited for the principle that the Court may resolve a case on the merits in the interest of expeditious administration of justice rather than remand it.

• Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Petition for Certiorari) — Applied as the proper remedy to challenge a judgment of acquittal when grave abuse of discretion is alleged, given that appeal is unavailable without violating double jeopardy.
• Rule 122, Section 1, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure — Noted for the general rule that any party may appeal from a final order or judgment, except when the appeal would place the accused in double jeopardy. This provision underlies the unappealability of acquittals and the need for certiorari in exceptional cases.
• Section 21, Article III, 1987 Constitution (Double Jeopardy) — The constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy was the central shield that prevented the prosecution from filing an ordinary appeal; the exception via certiorari is narrowly drawn to preserve this right.

Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad.

None.