UP Law F2021 People v.

Asis
Criminal Procedure Rule 122 2010 Mendoza

SUMMARY

Jaime Abordo was charged with two counts of attempted murder, but was found guilty only of serious
physical injuris and less serious physical injuries by the RTC. The OSG filed a petition for certiorari at the CA
to appeal the RTC judgment, but the same was dismissed outright, stating that it was not the proper remedy
but a notice to appeal. The OSG then filed a petition via Rule 45 at the SC, averring that petition for certiorari
was the proper remedy, and appealed the judgment. The SC upheld that certiorari was the correct remedy
but dismissed the appeal of RTC judgment.

FACTS

 Jaime Abordo was charged with two counts of attempted murder before the RTC of Biliran. The
antecedent facts were as follow:
o Oct 7, 2002- Abordo was riding his motorcycle on his way home;
o He was met by private complainants Kennard Majait, Joeniel Calvez and Jose Montes and an
altercation ensued;
o Abordo shot Majait in the leg while Calvez was hit in the lower left side of his abdomen.
Montes escaped unhurt.
 The trial court found no treachery and evident premeditation on the part of Abordo. Thus, it held
Abordo liable only for Serious Physical Injuries for shooting Calvez and Less Serious Physical Injuries
with regard to Majait. With respect to the complaint of Montes, Abordo was acquitted;
 The OSG filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA. The CA dismissed the petition
outright since ling of the petition for certiorari was the wrong remedy. As the State was questioning
the verdict of acquittal and findings of lesser offenses by the trial court, the remedy should have been
an appeal;
 Thus the herein petition via Rule 45

RATIO

W/N the petition for certiorari was the correct remedy to appeal Abordo’s ‘acquittal’
Yes. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not appeal, is the remedy to question a verdict of acquittal
whether at the trial court or at the appellate level. In our jurisdiction, We adhere to the finality-of-acquittal
doctrine, that is, a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. The rule, however, is not without
exception. In several cases, the Court has entertained petitions for certiorari questioning the acquittal of the
accused in, or the dismissals of, criminal cases.

In this petition, the OSG claims that Abordo's acquittal in Criminal Case No. N2213 was improper. Since
appeal could not be taken without violating Abordo's constitutionally guaranteed right against double
jeopardy, the OSG was correct in pursuing its cause via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the
appellate court. It was a serious error by the CA to have deprived the petitioner of its right to avail of that
remedy.

FALLO

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The June 7, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 01289, dismissing the petition for certiorari for being the wrong remedy is SET ASIDE.
Acting on the petition for certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.