Militante v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Sancho Militante was charged with the complex crime of attempted and frustrated homicide for shooting Maricris Torriente, a 13-year-old girl, during a barangay fiesta. The prosecution presented evidence that Militante, a police officer, was intoxicated and engaged in an argument with Joven Sombrero. During the altercation, Militante drew his handgun and fired, but the bullet missed Sombrero and struck Torriente, who was passing by. Torriente sustained severe injuries, including perforations to her small and large bowels and the shattering of her right kidney, necessitating extensive medical treatment and surgery. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iriga City convicted Militante of the crime charged and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty, ordering him to pay damages. Militante appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), raising the issue of whether he drew his pistol while others were walking away or if he and Sombrero were grappling for the gun when it accidentally discharged. The CA affirmed the RTC's conviction with modification, increasing the penalty and affirming the damages. Militante then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Militante filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing a decision not based on facts, evidence, and the law. He contended that the lower courts erred in giving credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, highlighting alleged inconsistencies. He also argued that the CA erred in not giving credence to his testimony and that of his witness, Rolando Manalo, who claimed the shooting was accidental during a struggle for the firearm. The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the petition was an improper remedy and that the petition was filed out of time. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, agreeing that it was filed beyond the reglementary period and that a petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy for alleged errors of judgment in the assessment of evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a decision not based on facts, evidence and the law, and whether the petition for certiorari was the appropriate remedy and filed within the reglementary period. Whether the respondent Court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a resolution not based on facts, evidence and the law, and whether the lower courts erred in their assessment of the evidence, particularly regarding inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in their assessment of the credibility of witnesses, particularly regarding any ill motive on the part of the witnesses. Whether the petitioner's guilt for the complex crime of attempted and frustrated homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari. It held that the petition was filed out of time, rendering the Court of Appeals' decision final and executory. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 45, and the alleged errors concerning the assessment of evidence and witness credibility are errors of judgment, not correctible by certiorari. Even if considered as a timely petition for review on certiorari, the Court found the CA's decision to be in accord with law and evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural issue of timeliness and the appropriateness of the remedy: The Court found that the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was filed beyond the reglementary period for filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The petitioner received the CA's denial of his motion for reconsideration on September 20, 2001, giving him until November 1, 2001, to file a petition for review on certiorari. However, the petition was filed on November 19, 2001, making the CA's decision final and executory. The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. Moreover, the errors ascribed to the CA, such as misappreciation of evidence and witness credibility, are errors of judgment, which are not grounds for a writ of certiorari. On the alleged errors of judgment and assessment of evidence: The Court emphasized that findings of fact of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded conclusive effect unless there is a showing that the courts ignored, misunderstood, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances. The Court found no justification to overrule the findings of the RTC and CA. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, such as Ramon Orante and Cornelio Bermido, Jr., were addressed. The Court noted that affidavits are often incomplete and that the petitioner's counsel failed to cross-examine Orante on the alleged omission. The Court also found that the petitioner was taking things out of context to create an appearance of inconsistency. The Court pointed out that the petitioner's claim of a struggle for the gun was a futile afterthought, as Maricris, Orante, and Bermido identified the petitioner as the shooter. The petitioner's flight from the scene was considered an implied admission of guilt. On the credibility of witnesses: The Court found no ill motive on the part of witness Ramon Orante to falsely accuse the petitioner, thus his testimony was presumed to be in good faith. The Court also addressed the petitioner's contention that the wound was "through-and-through" and that a slug was recovered, deeming this inconsequential as the decisive fact was that the petitioner shot the victim. On the substantive issue of guilt: The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that the petitioner was guilty of the complex crime of attempted and frustrated homicide. The evidence presented, particularly the testimonies of prosecution witnesses identifying the petitioner as the shooter, and the petitioner's flight from the scene, supported the conviction. The Court found that the petitioner performed all the acts of execution which would have produced homicide but were prevented by timely medical attendance.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 45, especially when the alleged errors are errors of judgment concerning the assessment of evidence and credibility of witnesses, rather than jurisdictional errors. Furthermore, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 must be filed within the reglementary period, and failure to do so renders the judgment final and executory.