G.R. No 166995, January 13, 2014 DENNIS T. VILLAREAL, Petitioner, v. CONS ELO C. ALIGA, Respondent. DECISION !ERALTA, J.

" Challenged in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules) are the pril !7, !""4 #ecision 1 and ugust 1", !""4 Resolution, ! of the Court of ppeals (C ) in C $%.R. R &o. !55'1entitled People of he Philippines v. Consuelo Cru( liga which ac)uitted respondent Consuelo C. liga ( liga) fro* the offense charged and, in effect, reversed and set aside the +ul, 1!, !""1 #ecision - of the Regional .rial Court R.C), /ranch 147, 0a1ati Cit,. 2n 2cto3er -1, 1994, an 5nfor*ation was filed against respondent liga for the cri*e of 6ualified .heft thru 7alsification of Co**ercial #ocu*ent, co**itted as follows8 .hat on or a3out the -"th da, of 2cto3er 1994, in the Cit, of 0a1ati, Philippines, a place within the 9urisdiction of this :onora3le Court, the a3ove$na*ed accused, 3eing then an accountant of #entrade 5nc., herein represented 3, #ennis .. ;illareal, and who has access to the co*pan,<s chec1ing accounts did then and there willfull,, unlawfull, and feloniousl, with grave a3use of confidence, with intent =to> gain and without the consent of the owner thereof, ta1e, steal and carr, awa, fro* co*plainant<s office, ?nited Coconut Planters /an1 Chec1 &o. :27 4'1"-9 dated 2cto3er !4, 1994 in the a*ount of P5,"""."", once in possession of said chec1, did then and there willfull,, unlawfull, and feloniousl, falsif, the a*ount 3, changing it to P45,"""."" and having the sa*e encashed with the 3an1, thereafter *isappropriate and convert to her own personal use and 3enefit the a*ount ofP4","""."" to the da*age and pre9udice of the herein co*plainant, #entrade 5nc., in the afore*entioned a*ount of P4","""."".4 #uring her arraign*ent on #ece*3er 4, 1994, respondent liga pleaded not guilt,. 5 fter the R.C resolved to den, petitioner<s *otion for issuance of a hold departure order against respondent liga and the latter<s *otion to suspend proceedings, 4 trial on the *erits ensued. /oth the prosecution and the defense were a3le to present the testi*onies of their witnesses and their respective docu*entar, e@hi3its. .he Court of follows8 ppeals, su3stantiall, adopting the trial court<s findings, narrated the relevant facts as

part fro* the docu*entar, e@hi3its A A to A7A, the co*3ined testi*onies of the prosecution witnesses Blsa #oroteo, #iosdado Coro*pido, Colanda 0artire( and &/5 agent +ohn Deonard #avid tend to esta3lish the following factual *ilieu8 Co*plainant #ennis .. ;illareal is the President and %eneral 0anager of #entrade, 5nc., a corporation with principal office address at the 7E7 Citi3an1 Center '741 Paseo de Ro@as, 0a1ati Cit,. s a 3usiness*an, ;illareal *aintains chec1ing accounts with the head office of China /an1ing Corporation (China3an1) in Paseo de Ro@as and ?nited Coconut Planters /an1 (?CP/) in 0a1ati venue, 3oth 3an1s are located in 0a1ati Cit,. :e has under his e*plo,, Blsa #oroteo, as e@ecutive secretar,, #iosdado Coro*pido, as *essenger, Colanda 0artire(, as chief accountant, =respondent> Consuelo Cru( liga and nnali(a Pere(, as accounting cler1s. =Respondent> has custod, of the personal chec1s of ;illareal. Fhe prepares the personal chec1s 3, t,ping its contents and su3*its the* to ;illareal for his signature. fter the signed chec1s are delivered to her, she in turn, gives the chec1s to the *essenger for encash*ent with the 3an1. Fo*eti*e in 2cto3er 1994, ;illareal<s governess as1ed #oroteo for the pa,*ent covering the ,ear 1995 for his children<s teacher in horse3ac1 riding. #oroteo replied that the said fees had 3een paid. .o verif, the *atter, #oroteo instructed Pere(, one of the accounting cler1s, to produce the originals

of the returned chec1s fro* =the> personal account of ;illareal. ?pon e@a*ining the returned chec1s, #oroteo found out that the fees for the horse3ac1 riding instructor had indeed 3een paid and that there were large encash*ents reflected on the chec1s in t,pewritten for*. #oroteo infor*ed ;illareal of her findings. ;illareal e@a*ined the returned chec1s and was surprised as he never authori(ed the large encash*ents. ?pon advice of his law,er, tt,. ;ictor Da(atin of the CCR Daw 2ffices, 0r. ;illareal sent a letter to the &ational /ureau of 5nvestigation (&/5) as1ing for assistance in the investigation of the *atter (B@h. A A). few da,s thereafter, &/5 agents +ohn Deonard #avid and Rafael Ragos arrived at the #entrade office. .he, e@a*ined the particular chec1s which involved large a*ounts and interviewed #oroteo. Ghen as1ed 3, the two &/5 agents, ;illareal told the* that there were three (-) chec1s pending for his signature, ?CP/ chec1s, all in pett, cash8 one chec1 was for P1,"""."", another for P5,"""."", and the last one for P4,"""."". .he, were all in t,pewritten for* which =respondent> prepared. s suggested 3, the &/5 agents, ;illareal signed the three (-) chec1s. #oroteo had the three chec1s photocopied then released their originals to =respondent>. 2n instruction of ;illareal, #oroteo and &/5 agent #avid went to ?CP/ the ne@t da, hoping that one of the chec1s will 3e encashed. t or a3out -8"" p.*. on that da,, #oroteo as1ed the 3an1 teller if ;illareal<s three chec1s were encashed. .he 3an1 teller infor*ed #oroteo that ?CP/ chec1 in the a*ount of P45,"""."" was encashed. #oroteo was surprised 3ecause she was then holding a photocop, of the original chec1 for P5,"""."" while she saw the teller holding a chec1 for P45,"""."" 3ut the chec1 nu*3er and date were e@actl, the sa*e as that of its photocop,. 23viousl,, the nu*3er A4A was intercalated in the chec1 3, adding the said nu*3er 3efore the digits A5,"""."".A ?pon #oroteo<s re)uest, the teller gave her a photocop, of the supposedl, altered chec1. #oroteo reported 3ac1 to the #entrade office and handed to ;illareal the photocop, of the chec1 3earing the a*ount of P45,"""."". Ghen su**oned, =respondent> arrived then e@ecuted a state*ent voluntaril, giving 3ac1 the a*ount of P4","""."" to ;illareal in the presence of his law,ers Da(atin and ;allente, and #oroteo. .he said state*ent was in the handwriting of =respondent> (B@h. A#A), which reads8 A fter 3eing confronted 3, 0r. #ennis .. ;illareal, 5 a* voluntaril, surrendering the P4","""."" as part of the proceeds of ?CP/ chec1 H 4'1"-9 dated 2cto3er -", 1994 as follows (in P1,"""."" 3ills) (serial no. of P1,"""."" 3ills su39ect of the state*ent).A #oroteo photocopied the P1,"""."" 3ills (B@h. ABA). fter =respondent> ad*itted the ta1ing of the e@cess a*ount of P4","""."", the &/5 agents placed her under arrest and too1 her to the &/5 detention center. ccording to witness Coro*pido, ;illareal<s *essenger, at 1"8"" a.*. of 2cto3er -", 1994, he was 3ound for ?CP/, 0a1ati venue 3ranch. =Respondent> re)uested hi* to pa, her AB@telco*A 3ill and as1ed hi* to *eet her at the ?CP/ 3an1. fter several *inutes, the two *et at the 3an1. =Respondent> handed to Coro*pido her AB@telco*A 3ill and one personal chec1 of ;illareal in the a*ount of P45,"""."". =Respondent> returned to the #entrade =office>. Coro*pido gave to the teller =respondent<s> AB@telco*A pa,*ent and also the personal chec1 of ;illareal for P45,"""."". .he teller release the P45,"""."" to Coro*pido who signed on the sta*ped portion of the chec1. =Respondent> liga has a different version for her defense. Fhe clai*ed that on 2cto3er -", 1994 at around !8-" p.*., the &/5 agents arrested her 3ut the, did =not> infor* =her> of her constitutional rights to re*ain silent and to 3e assisted 3, counselI that she was actuall, an accounting assistant to #entrade<s chief accountant, Colanda 0artire(, the accounting cler1 3eing nnali(a Pere(I that she was not in charge of ;illareal<s personal chec1ing account, 3ut 0artire(I that Pere( was the one in custod, of the =chec13oo1s> pertaining to the personal chec1ing accounts of ;illareal with ?CP/ and =China3an1>I that #oroteo was in possession of another =chec13oo1> and 1ept it in ;illareal<s residence.

=Respondent> ad*itted that the ?CP/ and China3an1 chec1s were also used for the replenish*ent of the cash advances *ade 3, ;illarealI that the replenish*ent was prepared using a t,pewriter 3, 0artire(, Pere(, #oroteo and herselfI that there was no regulation or control *echanis* in their office where the responsi3ilit, for preparing an, particular chec1 on the personal account of ;illareal could 3e identifiedI that the issuance of chec1s against the personal chec1ing accounts at the ?CP/ and China3an1 were fre)uent, fro* 5 to 1! chec1s dail,I and that there were no acco*pan,ing vouchers to record the purposes for which the chec1s were issuedI and that it was 0artire( who *onitors ;illareal<s personal chec1s at the ?CP/ and China3an1. 7 dditionall,, respondent liga clai*ed that Pere(, #oroteo, and 0artire( are also using t,pewriter in the chec1 preparation.' 0oreover, at the ti*e she was su**oned 3, ;illareal inside his office, the two &/5 agents (#avid and Ragos) and ;illareal<s counsels ( tt,s. Da(atin and ;allente) were 9oined in 3, &/5 #irector .oledo.9 .he e@tent of the &/5<s participation is disputed. Ghile respondent liga1"*aintained that she was alread, arrested 3, the &/5 at the *o*ent she was called to the office of ;illareal, #avid11 testified that the, were *erel, silent spectators therein, 9ust witnessing the confrontation or interview conducted 3, ;illareal and not even tal1ing to respondent liga. .he R.C succinctl, opined that the evidence of the prosecution is ver, clear that respondent liga *ust have 3een the one who *ade the intercalation in the su39ect chec1, and that even without her written ad*ission (B@hi3it A#A), the evidence presented constitutes proof 3e,ond reasona3le dou3t. .he +ul, 1!, !""1 #ecision disposed8 G:BRB72RB, in view of the foregoing, the Court, finding the accused C2&F?BD2 CR?J D5% guilt, 3e,ond reasona3le dou3t of the cri*e charged, here3, sentences her to suffer an indeter*inate sentence of 14 ,ears, ' *onths of reclusion te*poral as the *ini*u* to !" ,ears of reclusion te*poral as the *a@i*u*. 5t appearing that the a*ount of P4","""."" su39ect of the offense was alread, returned 3, the accused, the Court here3, a3solves the accused of civil lia3ilit, in this case. F2 2R#BRB#.1! Respondent liga appealed to the C , which, on pril !7, !""4, reversed and set aside the 9udg*ent of the R.C on the grounds that8 (1) her ad*ission or confession of guilt 3efore the &/5 authorities, which alread, )ualifies as a custodial investigation, is inad*issi3le in evidence 3ecause she was not infor*ed of her rights to re*ain silent and to have co*petent and independent counsel prefera3l, of her own choiceI and (!) the totalit, of the circu*stantial evidence presented 3, the prosecution is insufficient to overco*e the presu*ption of innocence of the accused. Petitioner<s *otion for reconsideration was denied 3, the C raising the issues for resolution as follows8 5. .:B C2?R. 27 PPB DF %R ;BDC BRRB# 5& #BCD R5&% 5& #05FF5/DB RBFP2&#B&.<F ;2D?&. RC #05FF52& 27 %?5D., 2& 5.F CDB RDC FPBC?D .5;B &# C2&+BC.?R D PRB05FB .: . RBFP2&#B&.<F 7RBB#20 27 C.52& G F 50P 5RB# G:B& F:B 0 #B .:B #05FF52&, C2&F5#BR5&% .: .8 . F D 5# #2G& /C .:5F :2&2R /DB C2?R., & #05FF52& 27 %?5D. F:57.F .:B /?R#B& .2 .:B #B7B&FB .2 F:2G .: . 5. G F BK.R C.B# /C 72RCB 2R #?RBFF. /. C2&.R RC .2 .:B +?R5FPR?#B&.5 D %?5#BD5&BF D 5# #2G& /C .:5F :2&2R /DB C2?R., .:B C2?R. 27 PPB DF BRR2&B2?FDC C2&CD?#B# .: . RBFP2&#B&. G F AB77BC.5;BDC PD CB# ?&#BR C?F.2#5 D 5&;BF.5% .52&A /C .:B F:BBR P:CF5C D PRBFB&CB 27 .:B &/5 %B&.F G:B& on ugust 1", !""4I hence, this petition

.:B #05FF52& G F 0 #B. C. RBFP2&#B&.<F ;2D?&. RC 5&#5;5#? D, 5.B., PB.5.52&BR :BRB5&. 55.

#05FF52& G F 0 #B .2

PR5; .B

.:B C2?R. 27 PPB DF %R ;BDC BRRB#, 57 &2. C.B# 5& BKCBFF 27 5.F +?R5F#5C.52&, G:B& 5. C2&CD?#B# .: . .:B PR2FBC?.52&<F B;5#B&CB G F 5&F?775C5B&. .2 2;BRC20B RBFP2&#B&.<F PRBF?0P.52& 27 5&&2CB&CB, C2&F5#BR5&% .: .8 . C2&.R RC .2 .:5F :2&2R /DB C2?R.<F +?R5FPR?#B&.5 D R?D5&%, .:B C2?R. 27 PPB DF B&.5RBDC 2;BRD22LB# .:B B;5#B&CB 2& RBC2R# &# BK C.B# #5RBC. B;5#B&CB 7R20 .:B PR2FBC?.52&. /. .:B C2?R. 27 PPB DF BRR2&B2?F C2&CD?F52& .: . RBFP2&#B&. 5F 5&&2CB&. 5F / FB# 2& 5.F 75&#5&% 27 F?PP2FB# 5&F?775C5B&CC 27 B;5#B&CB G:5C: 5F C2&.R #5C.B# /C .:B B;5#B&CB 2& RBC2R#. C. .:B C2?R. 27 PPB DF #BP R.B# 7R20 FB..DB# +?R5FPR?#B&CB, RB6?5R5&% 7R20 .:B PR2FBC?.52& 6? &.?0 27 B;5#B&CB %RB .BR .: & PR227 /BC2&# RB F2& /DB #2?/., G:B& 5.8 1. BRR2&B2?FDC R?DB# .: . .:B PR2FBC?.52& 7 5DB# .2 #5FC2?&. .:B P2FF5/5D5.C .: . F20B2&B BDFB C2?D# : ;B C ?FB# .:B D.BR .52& 2& .:B C:BCLI &# !. 7 ?D.5&% .:B PR2FBC?.52& 72R &2. PRBFB&.5&% PB.5.52&BR F G5.&BFF.

#. .:B C2?R. 27 PPB DF %R ;BDC BRRB# G:B&, / FB# 2& &2.:5&% 02RB .: & RBFP2&#B&.<F #B&5 DF, 5. #BP R.B# 7R20 .:B GBDD$FB..DB# R?DB D 5# #2G& /C .:5F :2&2R /DB C2?R. .: . .:B .R5 D C2?R.<F 75&#5&%F 27 7 C. &# C2&CD?F52&F / FB# .:BRB2&, F GBDD F 5.F FFBFF0B&. 27 .:B CRB#5/5D5.C 27 .:B G5.&BFFBF, RB C2&CD?F5;B ?P2& PPBDD .B C2?R.F.12n the other hand, respondent liga countered that8 5. .:B PB.5.52& 72R RB;5BG 2& CBR.52R R5 F:2?D# /B #5F05FFB# 72R R 5F5&% 2&DC 6?BF.52&F 27 7 C.F. 55. .:B PB.5.52& 72R RB;5BG 2& CBR.52R R5 F:2?D# /B #5F05FFB# 2& .:B %R2?&# 27 #2?/DB +B2P R#C. 555. PB.5.52&BR : F &2 F. &#5&% .2 75DB .:B 5&F. &. PB.5.52& 72R RB;5BG 2& CBR.52R R5. 5;. G5.:2?. PRB+?#5CB .2 .:B 72RB%25&% R%?0B&.F, .:B PB.5.52& 72R RB;5BG 2& CBR.52R R5 F:2?D# /B #5F05FFB# 72R 7 5D?RB .2 F:2G .: . .:B C2?R. 27 PPB DF C2005..B# %R5B;2?F BRR2R 5& 5FF?5&% .:B !7 PR5D !""4 &# 1" ?%?F. !""4 #BC5F52&FI 2& .:B

C2&.R RC, .:B #BC5F52&F &# +?R5FPR?#B&CB.14 .he petition is un*eritorious.

PPB R .2 /B 5&

CC2R# G5.: .:B 7 C.F

&# .:B

PPD5C /DB D G

.he petition should have 3een filed 3, the Ftate through the 2F% Petitioner too1 a procedural *isstep when he filed the present petition without the representation of the 2ffice of the Folicitor %eneral (2F%). 5n /autista v. Cuneta$Pangilinan, 15 Ge underscored8 @ @ @ .he authorit, to represent the Ftate in appeals of cri*inal cases 3efore the Fupre*e Court and the C is solel, vested in the 2ffice of the Folicitor %eneral (2F%). Fection -5 (1), Chapter 1!, .itle 555, /oo1 5; of the 19'7 d*inistrative Code e@plicitl, provides that the 2F% shall represent the %overn*ent of the Philippines, its agencies and instru*entalities and its officials and agents in an, litigation, proceeding, investigation or *atter re)uiring the services of law,ers. 5t shall have specific powers and functions to represent the %overn*ent and its officers in the Fupre*e Court and the C , and all other courts or tri3unals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the %overn*ent or an, officer thereof in his official capacit, is a part,. .he 2F% is the law office of the %overn*ent. .o 3e sure, in cri*inal cases, the ac)uittal of the accused or the dis*issal of the case against hi* can onl, 3e appealed 3, the Folicitor %eneral, acting on 3ehalf of the Ftate. .he private co*plainant or the offended part, *a, )uestion such ac)uittal or dis*issal onl, insofar as the civil lia3ilit, of the accused is concerned. 5n a catena of cases, this view has 3een ti*e and again espoused and *aintained 3, the Court. 5n Rodrigue( v. %adiane, it was categoricall, stated that if the cri*inal case is dis*issed 3, the trial court or if there is an ac)uittal, the appeal on the cri*inal aspect of the case *ust 3e instituted 3, the Folicitor %eneral in 3ehalf of the Ftate. .he capa3ilit, of the private co*plainant to )uestion such dis*issal or ac)uittal is li*ited onl, to the civil aspect of the case. .he sa*e deter*ination was also arrived at 3, the Court in 0etropolitan /an1 and .rust Co*pan, v. ;eridiano 55. 5n the recent case of /anga,an, +r. v. /anga,an, the Court again upheld this guiding principle. Gorth, of note is the case of People v. Fantiago, wherein the Court had the occasion to 3ring this issue to rest. .he Court elucidated8 5t is well settled that in cri*inal cases where the offended part, is the Ftate, the interest of the private co*plainant or the private offended part, is li*ited to the civil lia3ilit,. .hus, in the prosecution of the offense, the co*plainantMs role is li*ited to that of a witness for the prosecution. 5f a cri*inal case is dis*issed 3, the trial court or if there is an ac)uittal, an appeal therefro* on the cri*inal aspect *a, 3e underta1en onl, 3, the Ftate through the Folicitor %eneral. 2nl, the Folicitor %eneral *a, represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. .he private offended part, or co*plainant *a, not ta1e such appeal. :owever, the said offended part, or co*plainant *a, appeal the civil aspect despite the ac)uittal of the accused. 5n a special civil action for certiorari filed under Fection 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court co**itted a grave a3use of discretion a*ounting to lac1 of 9urisdiction or on other 9urisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition *a, 3e filed 3, the person aggrieved. 5n such case, the aggrieved parties are the Ftate and the private offended part, or co*plainant. .he co*plainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he *a, file such special civil action )uestioning the decision or action of the respondent court on 9urisdictional grounds. 5n so doing, co*plainant should not 3ring the action in the na*e of the People of the Philippines. .he action *a, 3e prosecuted in =the> na*e of said co*plainant. .hus, the Court has definitivel, ruled that in a cri*inal case in which the offended part, is the Ftate, the interest of the private co*plainant or the private offended part, is li*ited to the civil lia3ilit, arising therefro*. 5f a cri*inal case is dis*issed 3, the trial court or if there is an ac)uittal, an appeal

of the cri*inal aspect *a, 3e underta1en, whenever legall, feasi3le, onl, 3, the Ftate through the Folicitor %eneral. s a rule, onl, the Folicitor %eneral *a, represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. .he private offended part, or co*plainant *a, not underta1e such appeal. 14 5n the case at 3ar, the petition filed essentiall, assails the cri*inal, not the civil, aspect of the C #ecision. 5t *ust even 3e stressed that petitioner never challenged 3efore the C , and in this Court, the R.C 9udg*ent which a3solved respondent liga fro* civil lia3ilit, in view of the return of theP4","""."" su39ect *atter of the offense on 2cto3er -", 1994. .herefore, the petition should have 3een filed onl, 3, the Ftate through the 2F%. Petitioner lac1s the personalit, or legal standing to )uestion the C #ecision 3ecause it is onl, the 2F% which can 3ring actions on 3ehalf of the Ftate in cri*inal proceedings 3efore the Fupre*e Court and the C . ?nli1e in 0ontaNe( v. Cipriano 17 where we adopted a li3eral view, the 2F%, in its Co**ent on this case, 1' neither pra,ed that the petition 3e granted nor e@pressl, ratified and adopted as its own the petition for the People of the Philippines. 5nstead, it *erel, 3egged to e@cuse itself fro* filing a Co**ent due to conflict of interest and for not having 3een i*pleaded in the case. 9udg*ent of ac)uittal *a, 3e assailed onl, in a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court Petitioner also co**itted another procedural 3lunder. petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules should have 3een filed instead of herein petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. .he People *a, assail a 9udg*ent of ac)uittal onl, via petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules. 5f the petition, regardless of its no*enclature, *erel, calls for an ordinar, review of the findings of the court a )uo, the constitutional right of the accused against dou3le 9eopard, would 3e violated. 19 .he Court *ade this clear in People v. Fandigan3a,an (7irst #iv.), !" thus8 @ @ @ petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and a petition for certiorariunder Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are two and separate re*edies. petition under Rule 45 3rings up for review errors of 9udg*ent, while a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 covers errors of 9urisdiction or grave a3use of discretion a*ounting to e@cess or lac1 of 9urisdiction. %rave a3use of discretion is not an allowa3le ground under Rule 45. petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is a *ode of appeal. ?nder Fection 1 of the said Rule, a part, aggrieved 3, the decision or final order of the Fandigan3a,an *a, file a petition for review on certiorari with this Court8 Fection 1. 7iling of petition with Fupre*e Court. $ part, desiring to appeal 3, certiorari fro* a 9udg*ent or final order or resolution of the Court of ppeals, the Fandigan3a,an, the Regional .rial Court, or other courts whenever authori(ed 3, law, *a, file with the Fupre*e Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. .he petition shall raise onl, )uestions of law which *ust 3e distinctl, set forth. :owever, the provision *ust 3e read in relation to Fection 1, Rule 1!! of the Revised Rules of Court, which provides that an, part, *a, appeal fro* a 9udg*ent or final order Aunless the accused will there3, 3e placed in dou3le 9eopard,.A .he 9udg*ent that *a, 3e appealed 3, the aggrieved part, envisaged in the Rule is a 9udg*ent convicting the accused, and not a 9udg*ent of ac)uittal. .he Ftate is 3arred fro* appealing such 9udg*ent of ac)uittal 3, a petition for review. Fection !1, rticle 555 of the Constitution provides that Ano person shall 3e twice put in 9eopard, of punish*ent for the sa*e offense.A .he rule is that a 9udg*ent ac)uitting the accused is final and i**ediatel, e@ecutor, upon its pro*ulgation, and that accordingl,, the Ftate *a, not see1 its review without placing the accused in dou3le 9eopard,. Fuch ac)uittal is final and unappeala3le on the ground of dou3le 9eopard, whether it happens at the trial court or on appeal at the C . .hus, the Ftate is proscri3ed fro* appealing the 9udg*ent of ac)uittal of the accused to this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. @@@

9udg*ent of ac)uittal *a, 3e assailed 3, the People in a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court without placing the accused in dou3le 9eopard,. :owever, in such case, the People is 3urdened to esta3lish that the court a )uo, in this case, the Fandigan3a,an, acted without 9urisdiction or grave a3use of discretion a*ounting to e@cess or lac1 of 9urisdiction. %rave a3use of discretion generall, refers to capricious or whi*sical e@ercise of 9udg*ent as is e)uivalent to lac1 of 9urisdiction. .he a3use of discretion *ust 3e so patent and gross as to a*ount to an evasion of a positive dut, or virtual refusal to perfor* a dut, i*posed 3, law, or to act in conte*plation of law or where the power is e@ercised in an ar3itrar, and despotic *anner 3, reason of passion and hostilit,. &o grave a3use of discretion *a, 3e attri3uted to a court si*pl, 3ecause of its alleged *isapplication of facts and evidence, and erroneous conclusions 3ased on said evidence. Certiorari will issue onl, to correct errors of 9urisdiction, and not errors or *ista1es in the findings and conclusions of the trial court. !1 .he nature of certiorari action was e@pounded in People v. Court of ppeals (7ifteenth #iv.)8 !!

@ @ @ Certiorari alleging grave a3use of discretion is an e@traordinar, re*ed,. 5ts use is confined to e@traordinar, cases wherein the action of the inferior court is wholl, void. 5ts ai* is to 1eep the inferior court within the para*eters of its 9urisdiction or to prevent it fro* co**itting such a grave a3use of discretion a*ounting to lac1 or e@cess of 9urisdiction. &o grave a3use of discretion *a, 3e attri3uted to the court si*pl, 3ecause of its alleged *isappreciation of facts and evidence. Ghilecertiorari *a, 3e used to correct an a3usive ac)uittal, the petitioner in such e@traordinar, proceeding *ust clearl, de*onstrate that the lower court 3latantl, a3used its authorit, to a point so grave as to deprive it of its ver, power to dispense 9ustice. !and further in 7irst Corporation v. 7or*er Fi@th #ivision of the Court of ppeals8 !4

5t is a funda*ental aphoris* in law that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of the e@traordinar, re*ed, of certiorari, which is e@tra ordine*O3e,ond the a*3it of appeal. 5n certiorariproceedings, 9udicial review does not go as far as to e@a*ine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the pro3ative value thereof. 5t does not include an in)uir, as to the correctness of the evaluation of evidence. @ @ @ 5t is not for this Court to re$e@a*ine conflicting evidence, re$evaluate the credi3ilit, of the witnesses or su3stitute the findings of fact of the court a )uo.!5 .he case does not fall within the e@ception to rule on dou3le 9eopard, 5ndeed, a 9udg*ent of ac)uittal, whether ordered 3, the trial or the appellate court, is final, unappeala3le, and i**ediatel, e@ecutor, upon its pro*ulgation. !4 .he rationale for the rule is elucidated in the oft$cited case of People v. :on. ;elasco8 !7 .he funda*ental philosoph, highlighting the finalit, of an ac)uittal 3, the trial court cuts deep into Athe hu*anit, of the laws and in a 9ealous watchfulness over the rights of the citi(en, when 3rought in une)ual contest with the Ftate. @ @ @.A .hus, %reen e@pressed the concern that A(t)he underl,ing idea, one that is deepl, ingrained in at least the nglo$ *erican s,ste* of 9urisprudence, is that the Ftate with all its resources and power should not 3e allowed to *a1e repeated atte*pts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, there3, su39ecting hi* to e*3arrass*ent, e@pense and ordeal and co*pelling hi* to live in a continuing state of an@iet, and insecurit,, as well as enhancing the possi3ilit, that even though innocent, he *a, 3e found guilt,.A 5t is a@io*atic that on the 3asis of hu*anit,, fairness and 9ustice, an ac)uitted defendant is entitled to the right of repose as a direct conse)uence of the finalit, of his ac)uittal. .he philosoph, underl,ing this rule esta3lishing the a3solute nature of ac)uittals is Apart of the para*ount i*portance cri*inal 9ustice s,ste* attaches to the protection of the innocent against wrongful conviction.A .he interest in the finalit,$of$ac)uittal rule, confined e@clusivel, to verdicts of not guilt,, is eas, to understand8 it is a need for Arepose,A a desire to 1now the e@act e@tent of oneMs lia3ilit,. Gith this right of repose, the

cri*inal 9ustice s,ste* has 3uilt in a protection to insure that the innocent, even those whose innocence rests upon a 9ur,<s lenienc,, will not 3e found guilt, in a su3se)uent proceeding. Related to his right of repose is the defendant<s interest in his right to have his trial co*pleted 3, a particular tri3unal. .his interest enco*passes his right to have his guilt or innocence deter*ined in a single proceeding 3, the initial 9ur, e*panelled to tr, hi*, for societ,<s awareness of the heav, personal strain which the cri*inal trial represents for the individual defendant is *anifested in the willingness to li*it %overn*ent to a single cri*inal proceeding to vindicate its ver, vital interest in enforce*ent of cri*inal laws. .he ulti*ate goal is prevention of govern*ent oppressionI the goal finds its voice in the finalit, of the initial proceeding. s o3served in Doc1hart v. &elson, A(t)he funda*ental tenet ani*ating the #ou3le +eopard, Clause is that the Ftate should not 3e a3le to oppress individuals through the a3use of the cri*inal process.A /ecause the innocence of the accused has 3een confir*ed 3, a final 9udg*ent, the Constitution conclusivel, presu*es that a second trial would 3e unfair.!' People v. Court of ppeals (7ifteenth #iv.) !9 also stated8

@ @ @ .he finalit,$of$ac)uittal doctrine has several avowed purposes. Pri*aril,, it prevents the Ftate fro* using its cri*inal processes as an instru*ent of harass*ent to wear out the accused 3, a *ultitude of cases with accu*ulated trials. 5t also serves the additional purpose of precluding the Ftate, following an ac)uittal, fro* successivel, retr,ing the defendant in the hope of securing a conviction. nd finall,, it prevents the Ftate, following conviction, fro* retr,ing the defendant again in the hope of securing a greater penalt,. 5n People v. ;elasco, we stressed that an ac)uitted defendant is entitled to the right of repose as a direct conse)uence of the finalit, of his ac)uittal @ @ @. -" :owever, the rule against dou3le 9eopard, is not without e@ceptions, which are8 (1) Ghere there has 3een deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a *istrial, or (!) Ghere there has 3een a grave a3use of discretion under e@ceptional circu*stances. -1 ?nfortunatel, for petitioner, Ge find that these e@ceptions do not e@ist in this case. 7irst, there is no deprivation of due process or a *istrial. 5n fact, petitioner did not *a1e an, allegation to that effect. Ghat the records show is that during the trial, 3oth parties had *ore than sufficient occasions to 3e heard and to present their evidence. .he sa*e is true during the appeal 3efore the C . .he Ftate, represented 3, the 2F%, was not deprived of a fair opportunit, to prove its case. nd second, no grave a3use of discretion could 3e attri3uted to the C . 5t could not 3e said that its 9udg*ent was issued without 9urisdiction, and, for this reason, void. gain, petitioner did not even allege that the C gravel, a3used its discretion. 5nstead, what he asserted was that the C Agravel, erredA in the evaluation and assess*ent of the evidence presented 3, the parties. Certainl,, what he )uestioned was the purported errors of 9udg*ent or those involving *isappreciation of evidence or errors of law, which, as aforesaid, cannot 3e raised and 3e reviewed in a Rule 45 petition. .o repeat, a writ of certiorari can onl, correct errors of 9urisdiction or those involving the co**ission of grave a3use of discretion, not those which call for the evaluation of evidence and factual findings. @ @ @ n, error co**itted in the evaluation of evidence is *erel, an error of 9udg*ent that cannot 3e re*edied 3, certiorari. n error of 9udg*ent is one in which the court *a, co**it in the e@ercise of its 9urisdiction. n error of 9urisdiction is one where the act co*plained of was issued 3, the court without or in e@cess of 9urisdiction, or with grave a3use of discretion which is tanta*ount to lac1 or in e@cess of 9urisdiction and which error is correcti3le onl, 3, the e@traordinar, writ of certiorari.Certiorari will not 3e issued to cure errors 3, the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, and its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law. Fince no error of 9urisdiction can 3e attri3uted to pu3lic respondent in her assess*ent of the evidence, certiorari will not lie.-!

?pon perusal of the records, it is 2ur considered view that the conclusions arrived at 3, the C cannot, 3, an, *easure, 3e characteri(ed as capricious, whi*sical or ar3itrar,. Ghile it *a, 3e argued that there have 3een instances where the appreciation of facts *ight have resulted fro* possi3le lapses in the evaluation of the evidence, nothing herein detracts fro* the fact that relevant and *aterial evidence was scrutini(ed, considered and evaluated as proven 3, the C <s length, discussion of its opinion. Ge note that the petition 3asicall, raises issues pertaining to alleged errors of 9udg*ent not errors of 9urisdiction which is tanta*ount to an appeal contrar, to the e@press in9unction of the Constitution the Rules of Court and prevailing 9urisprudence. Confor*a3l, then we need not e*3ar1 upon review of the factual and evidentiar, issues raised 3, petitioner as these are o3viousl, not within the real* of 2ur 9urisdiction. G:BRB72RB, the instant petition is #5F05FFB# for lac1 of *erit. .he ac)uittal of herein respondent Consuelo C. liga 3, the Court of ppeals in its pril !7, !""4 #ecision and ugust 1", !""4 Resolution in C $%.R. CR &o. !55'1 entitled People of the Philippines v. Consuelo Cru( liga is 775R0B#. &o pronounce*ent as to costs. SO ORDERED. DIOSDADO #. !ERALTA Associate Justice $E CONC R" !RES%ITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice Chairperson RO%ERTO A. A%AD Associate Justice JOSE CATRAL #ENDO&A Associate Justice

#ARVIC #ARIO VICTOR '. LEONEN Associate Justice ATTESTATION 5 attest that the conclusions in the a3ove #ecision had 3een reached in consultation 3efore the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court<s #ivision. !RES%ITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice Chairperson, Third Division CERTI'ICATION Pursuant to Fection 1-, rticle ;555 of the Constitution and the #ivision Chairperson s ttestation, 5 certif, that the conclusions in the a3ove #ecision had 3een reached in consultation 3efore the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court<s #ivision. #ARIA LO RDES !. A. SERENO Chief Justice