Error of judgment

Verdicts of acquittal are usually non-reviewable or appealable. However the remedy of certiorari may be allowed if the trial court rendering the verdict acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This rule is explained in this case of Terry.

Terry was accused of “carnapping” or violation of R.A. 6538 otherwise known as the Anti-Carnapping Law, for forcibly taking and carting away the motorized tricycle belonging to Grace. The charge was initially dismissed provisionally based on the affidavit of desistance filed by Grace because she was then leaving for the States with her husband. Subsequently however it was revived upon motion of Grace. So trial ensued.

At the trial, the prosecution witnesses tried to prove that Terry asked the tricycle driver Danny to bring him to a barangay and upon reaching it he alighted and stoned the tricycle and Danny. Danny tried to pacify him but he had a fan knife so Terry was able to seize the tricycle and drove away, leaving Danny behind.

Terry on the other hand said that he did not forcibly take the tricycle but borrowed it from Danny. However when he was about to return it, he hit a stone, lost control of it and bumped a tree. In fact he voluntarily paid the amount of P8,000 as partial remuneration for the repairs which was estimated to cost P25,000.

After trial, the lower court acquitted Danny for failure of the prosecution to establish intent to take and intent to gain. Aggrieved, Grace filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court without the participation of the Solicitor General. She alleged that there was misapprehension of facts and that the trial court reached its conclusion based entirely on speculation surmises and conjectures, and acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as the judgment of acquittal was rendered on dubious factual and legal basis. Will the petition prosper?

No. While Grace alleges grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the imputation is premised on the averment that the trial court reached its conclusions based on misapprehension of facts.

As a rule factual matters cannot be inquired into by the Supreme Court in a certiorari proceeding. A review of the facts and evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari which is extra ordinem — beyond the ambit of appeal. The mistakes ascribed to the trial court are not errors of jurisdiction correctible by certiorari but errors of judgment correctible by petition for review. Assuming that the trial court committed a mistake in its judgment, the error does not vitiate the decision, considering that it has jurisdiction over the case.

The remedy of certiorari to correct an erroneous acquittal may be allowed in cases where it is clearly shown that the court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. If the petition merely calls for an ordinary review of the factual findings of the trial court, it would violate the constitutional right against double jeopardy. Such recourse is tantamount to converting the petition for certiorari into an appeal which is prohibited by the Constitution, the Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence on double jeopardy. Verdicts of acquittal are to be regarded as absolutely final and non-reviewable. The fundamental philosophy behind the principle is to afford the accused who has been acquitted, final repose and to safeguard him from government oppression through the abuse of criminal processes (People, etc. vs. Terrado et.al., G.R. 148226, July 14, 2008).

(Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor and Criminal Laws now available. Call tel. 7249445 or e-mail [email protected])