PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ENRIQUE C.

ASIS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS

PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BILIRAN PROVINCE, BRANCH 16, AND
JAIME ABORDO, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 173!" # A$%$&' (), (1 MENDO*A, J.#]
TOPIC# R$+, 1( - J$.%/,0'
DOCTRINE# the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable
exceptions:
i. a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in 1 2,'3'3o0 4o5 6,5'3o5153
$0.,5 R$+, 6) of the Rules of Court upon clear showing by the petitioner that the lower
court, in acquitting the accused, committed not merely 5,7,5&38+, ,55o5& o4 9$.%/,0'but
also %517, 18$&, o4 .3&65,'3o0 amounting to lac or excess of jurisdiction or a.,031+ o4
.$, 25o6,&&, thus rendering the assailed judgment !oid.
ii. where the acquittal of the accused was !ia the grant of his demurrer to e!idence based
on the ground of gra!e abuse of discretion, amounting to lac or excess of jurisdiction.
"uch dismissal order, being considered !oid judgment, does not result in jeopardy.
FACTS#
#. $bordo was charged with % counts of attempted murder and # count of frustrated murder before
R&C of 'iliran (ro!ince.
a. &C found no treachery and e!ident premeditation.
b. R&C held $bordo liable only for "erious (hysical )njuries for shooting Cal!e* and +ess
"erious (hysical )njuries with regard to ,ajait.
c. )t also appreciated four -./ generic mitigating circumstances in fa!or of $bordo. 0ith
respect to the complaint of ,ontes, $bordo was acquitted.
%. $ll 1 complainants mo!ed for reconsideration regarding ci!il aspect.
1. Cal!e* without the conformity of the (ro!incial (rosecutor, filed a notice of appeal for both the
ci!il and the criminal aspects.
a. Cal!e* later sought withdrawal of his motion for reconsideration and its supplement.
.. &C dismissed ,ajait2s motion for reconsideration while Cal!e*2s motion to withdraw was granted.
a. )t also dismissed Cal!e*2 appeal for not bearing the conformity of the (ro!incial
(rosecutor.
3. $ petition for certiorari under Rule 43 before the C$ was filed.
a. C$ dismissed the petition the remedy should ha!e been an appeal. ,oreo!er, the
petition for certiorari placed the accused in double jeopardy.
x x x. 5!en if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction o!er the case, such
correction is normally beyond the pro!ince of certiorari. 0here the error is not one of jurisdiction but an
error of law or fact a mistae of judgment appeal is the remedy. )n !iew of the improper action taen by
the herein petitioner, the instant petition should be dismissed.
ISSUE# 0hether petition for certiorari was the proper remedy to question error of judgment.
HELD# 65", a petition for certiorari under Rule 43, not appeal, is the remedy to question a !erdict of
acquittal whether at the trial court or at the appellate le!el. $s the case was summarily dismissed on a
technicality, the merits of the petition for certiorari were not at all discussed.
#. the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable
b. exceptions:
i. a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in 1 2,'3'3o0 4o5 6,5'3o5153
$0.,5 R$+, 6) of the Rules of Court upon clear showing by the petitioner that the lower
court, in acquitting the accused, committed not merely 5,7,5&38+, ,55o5& o4 9$.%/,0'but
also %517, 18$&, o4 .3&65,'3o0 amounting to lac or excess of jurisdiction or a.,031+ o4
.$, 25o6,&&, thus rendering the assailed judgment !oid.
ii. where the acquittal of the accused was !ia the grant of his demurrer to e!idence based
on the ground of gra!e abuse of discretion, amounting to lac or excess of jurisdiction.
"uch dismissal order, being considered !oid judgment, does not result in jeopardy.
%. )n the case, $bordo2s acquittal was improper. "ince appeal could not be taen without !iolating
$bordo2s constitutionally guaranteed right against double jeopardy, the 7"8 was correct in
pursuing its cause !ia a petition for certiorari under Rule 43 before the appellate court.
a. )n ruling that pri!ate respondent had no intent to ill pri!ate complainants, respondent judge
thus accorded full faith and credit to the testimonies of pri!ate respondent and his
witnesses 9ulito 'ernadas and ,elquiades (alconit. :is findings, howe!er, are contrary to
law and the e!idence. &herefore, he acted with gra!e abuse of discretion amounting to
lac or excess of jurisdiction