People v. Abordo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Jaime Abordo was involved in an altercation where he shot Kennard Majait in the leg and Joeniel Calvez in the abdomen. Abordo was subsequently charged with two counts of attempted murder and one count of frustrated murder. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Abordo guilty of Serious Physical Injuries for the incident involving Calvez and Less Serious Physical Injuries for the incident involving Majait, acquitting him of the charges related to Montes. The RTC also appreciated four generic mitigating circumstances in Abordo's favor. 2. Procedural History: Following the RTC's decision, the complainants moved for reconsideration, including a request for moral damages. Calvez filed a notice of appeal for both civil and criminal aspects without the Provincial Prosecutor's conformity, which he later sought to withdraw. The RTC dismissed Majait's motion for reconsideration and granted Calvez's motion to withdraw his own motion. Crucially, the RTC also dismissed Calvez's appeal due to the lack of the Provincial Prosecutor's conformity. Subsequently, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), acting on an indorsement from the Chief State Prosecutor regarding a letter from an Assistant City Prosecutor, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). 3. The Petition: The OSG filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the CA's resolution. The CA had dismissed the OSG's earlier petition for certiorari under Rule 65, ruling that it was the wrong remedy and that filing it placed the accused in double jeopardy. The OSG argued that the CA erred in dismissing the petition outright, contending that certiorari under Rule 65 was the appropriate remedy to question the trial court's judgment, particularly the acquittal, as an appeal would violate the accused's right against double jeopardy. The OSG sought to annul the RTC's joint judgment, asserting it was contrary to evidence and applicable law.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari outright on the ground that it was the wrong remedy. Whether the petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals was meritorious.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It set aside the Court of Appeals' Resolution dismissing the petition for certiorari for being the wrong remedy. However, the Court resolved to deny the petition for certiorari itself for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari as a remedy (Issue 1): The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari outright. While a judgment of acquittal is generally final and unappealable due to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine and the prohibition against double jeopardy, an exception exists where the lower court, in acquitting the accused, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In such exceptional cases, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy, as an appeal would violate the accused's right against double jeopardy. The OSG correctly availed itself of certiorari to question Abordo's acquittal in Criminal Case No. N-2213, as an appeal would have been barred by double jeopardy. On the merits of the petition for certiorari (Issue 2): Despite finding that the CA erred in dismissing the petition on a technicality, the Supreme Court reviewed the OSG's petition for certiorari and found it to be bereft of merit. The Court emphasized that certiorari can only correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, not mere errors of judgment or factual findings. The OSG's arguments primarily called for a review of the evidence and a recalibration of the trial court's factual findings, such as the appreciation of intent to kill and the credibility of witnesses. The petition did not demonstrate that the prosecution was deprived of due process or that the trial court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Therefore, the petition for certiorari, on its face, could not be given due course, and a remand to the CA was unnecessary.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not appeal, is the proper remedy to question a verdict of acquittal when the lower court, in acquitting the accused, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, as an appeal in such a case would violate the accused's right against double jeopardy. However, certiorari cannot be used to correct mere errors of judgment or review the trial court's evaluation of evidence and factual findings.