Premium Content

You accessing premium content on FREE trial.

PEOPLE v. CA

This case has been cited 31 times or more.

2013-03-12
DEL CASTILLO, J.
This case is an offshoot of People v. Court of Appeals,[6] docketed as G.R. No. 144332 and promulgated on June 10, 2004.
2013-03-12
DEL CASTILLO, J.
This case is an offshoot of People v. Court of Appeals,[6] docketed as G.R. No. 144332 and promulgated on June 10, 2004.
2013-03-06
BRION, J.
Even assuming that a petition for certiorari is available to the petitioners, a review of their petition shows that the issues they raise (i.e., existence of probable cause to support the freeze order; the applicability of the 6-month limit to the extension of freeze orders embodied in the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture) pertain to errors of judgment allegedly committed by the CA, which fall outside the Court's limited jurisdiction when resolving certiorari petitions. As held in People v. Court of Appeals:[24]
2013-01-28
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In the case of People v. Court of Appeals,[39] accused-respondents were convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of violation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 and accordingly sentenced with the prescribed penalty of imprisonment. Instead of appealing the RTC judgment after the denial of their motion for reconsideration, respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA, praying for the reversal of their conviction. The CA reviewed the trial court's assessment of the evidence on record, its findings of facts, and its conclusions based on the said findings. The CA forthwith concluded that the said evidence was utterly insufficient on which to anchor a judgment of conviction, and acquitted one of the respondents of the crime charged.
2009-08-28
CARPIO, J.
As regards the fifth[16] and seventh[17] issues, although petitioners allege grave abuse of discretion, such issues involve errors of judgment which are not reviewable in a certiorari proceeding. In the fifth issue, petitioners claim that the case can be dismissed on summary judgment for lack of cause of action while in the seventh issue, they assert that the trial court should have granted a preliminary injunction in favor of petitioner corporation to protect its intellectual property rights. The Court notes that the arguments raised by petitioners are not errors involving jurisdiction but one of judgment, which is beyond the ambit of a certiorari proceeding. A certiorari proceeding is an extraordinary remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.[18] As such, a petition for certiorari must aver only jurisdictional matters or raise questions of jurisdiction. Thus, if the facts alleged do not raise any genuine jurisdictional issue, the petition for certiorari would be devoid of merit.[19] As held in People v. Court of Appeals:[20]
2009-06-05
NACHURA, J.
Settled is the rule that a petition for certiorari is proper to correct only errors of jurisdiction committed by respondent court, tribunal or administrative agency.[18] Public respondent acts without jurisdiction if it does not have the legal power to determine the case, or in excess of jurisdiction if it oversteps its authority as determined by law. Grave abuse of discretion is committed when respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[19] In a petition for certiorari, the jurisdiction of the court is narrow in scope as it is limited to resolving only cases of jurisdiction.[20]
2009-02-13
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Incertiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the inquiryis limited essentially to whether or not the public respondent acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.[7]
2008-08-28
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court believes in the findings made by Dr. Cala as contained in the medico-legal certificate he issued showing that the victim suffered injuries on the right side of his head, consistent with the declarations of prosecution witnesses that the victim was, from behind, struck with a shovel twice on the right side of the head. We give more weight to this medical certificate, because the same was issued by a government doctor. By actual practice, only government physicians, by virtue of their oaths as civil service officials, are competent to examine persons and issue medical certificates which will be used by the government.[54] As such, the medical certificate carries the presumption of regularity in the performance of his functions and duties. Moreover, under Section 44, Rule 130,[55] Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Dr. Cala's findings that the victim sustained injuries on the right side of his head are, therefore, conclusive in the absence of evidence proving the contrary, as in this case. We cannot consider the contents of the medical certificate issued by Dr. Mensalvas sufficient to controvert the findings of Dr. Cala. As held by this Court, an unverified medical certificate not issued by a government physician is unreliable.[56]
2008-06-25
CARPIO MORALES, J.
Fair play dictates that the SSS be afforded the opportunity to properly meet the issue[64] with respect to the new ailments besetting petitioner, in line with the actual practice that only qualified government physicians, by virtue of their oath as civil service officials, are competent to examine persons and issue medical certificates which will be used by the government for a specific official purpose.[65] This holds greater significance where there exist differences or doubts as to the medical condition of the person.
2007-02-08
CALLEJO, SR., J.
Mere abuse of discretion is not enough.[70] The only question involved is jurisdiction, either the lack or excess thereof, and abuse of discretion warrants the issuance of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari only when the same is grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility.  A writ of certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.[71]  An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, which error is reversible only by an appeal.[72] In Cosep v. NLRC,[73] this Court held that decisions of administrative agencies which are declared final by law are not exempt from judicial review for want of substantial basis in fact and in law.
2006-12-06
CALLEJO, SR., J.
There is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman when it acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough.[34] The only question involved is jurisdiction, either the lack or excess thereof, and abuse of discretion warrants the issuance of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari only when the same is grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility. A writ of certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.[35] An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is reversible only by an appeal.[36]
2006-11-22
CALLEJO, SR., J.
Mere abuse of discretion is not enough.[35] The only question involved is jurisdiction, either the lack or excess thereof, and abuse of discretion warrants the issuance of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari only when the same is grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility. A writ of certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.[36] An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, which error is reversible only by an appeal.[37]
2006-10-25
CARPIO, J.
The Lambino Group's initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)[4] and Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department)[5] and by adding Article XVIII entitled "Transitory Provisions."[6] These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. The Lambino Group prayed that after due publication of their petition, the COMELEC should submit the following proposition in a plebiscite for the voters' ratification: DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER? On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of their initiative.[7]
2006-09-20
CALLEJO, SR., J.
The well-settled rule is that certiorari is not available where the aggrieved party's remedy of appeal is plain, speedy and adequate in the ordinary course, the reason being that certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other adequate remedy. The existence and availability of the right to appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action for certiorari. These two remedies are mutually exclusive.[38] Consequently, when petitioner filed her petition in this Court, the decision of the Shari'a District Court was already final and executory.
2005-11-25
CALLEJO, SR., J.
The ruling of the appellate court is correct.  The respondent court, tribunal or administrative agency acts without jurisdiction if it does not have the legal power to determine the case.  There is excess of jurisdiction where the respondent, being clothed with the power to determine the case, oversteps its authority as determined by law.  There is grave abuse of discretion where the public respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment as to be said to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough.[26]
2005-07-15
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner, via a petition for review on certiorari, prays for the nullification and the setting aside of the decision of public respondent acquitting private respondent claiming that the former abused her discretion in disregarding the testimonies of the NBI agents on the discovery of the illegal drugs.  The petition smacks in the heart of the lower court's appreciation of the evidence of the parties.  It is apparent from the decision of public respondent that she considered all the evidence adduced by the parties.  Even assuming arguendo that public respondent may have improperly assessed the evidence on hand, what is certain is that the decision was arrived at only after all the evidence was considered, weighed and passed upon.  In such a case, any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari.  An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction.[21] An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.[22] Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors by 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.[23] Since no error of jurisdiction can be attributed to public respondent in her assessment of the evidence, certiorari will not lie.
2005-05-17
CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the issue of jurisdiction, case law has it that the jurisdiction of the tribunal over the nature and subject matter of an action is to be determined by the allegations of the complaint, the law in effect when the complaint was filed and the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. The caption of the complaint is not determinative of the nature of the action. If a court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only and undertakes to exercise jurisdiction in a particular case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void. The lack of statutory authority to make a particular judgment is akin to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.[42]
2005-04-29
CALLEJO, SR., J.
In People v. Court of Appeals,[29] this Court held that if a court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void.  The lack of statutory authority to make a particular judgment is akin to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
2005-03-31
CALLEJO, SR., J.
The petitioners are correct in claiming that an order or resolution of the Sandiganbayan ordering the dismissal of criminal cases becomes final and executory upon the lapse of 15 days from notice thereof to the parties, and, as such, is beyond the jurisdiction of the graft court to review, modify or set aside, if no appeal therefrom is filed by the aggrieved party.  However, if the Sandiganbayan acts in excess or lack of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in dismissing a criminal case, the dismissal is null and void.  A tribunal acts without jurisdiction if it does not have the legal power to determine the case; there is excess of jurisdiction where a tribunal, being clothed with the power to determine the case, oversteps its authority as determined by law.[26] A void judgment or order has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. In contemplation of law, it is non-existent.[27] Such judgment or order may be resisted in any action or proceeding whenever it is involved.  It is not even necessary to take any steps to vacate or avoid a void judgment or final order; it may simply be ignored.[28]
2005-02-23
CALLEJO, SR., J.
Following the rule, the petitioner should have appealed to this Court from the CA decision denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, as well as the denial of his motion for reconsideration thereof; instead, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended. The well-settled rule is that certiorari is not available where the aggrieved party's remedy of appeal is plain, speedy and adequate in the ordinary course, the reason being that certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other adequate remedy. The existence and availability of the right to appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action for certiorari. These two remedies are mutually exclusive.[24] An appeal in this case would still have been a speedy and adequate remedy. Consequently, when the petitioner filed his petition in this Court, the decision of the CA was already final and executory.
2005-02-16
CALLEJO, SR., J.
The COSLAP had no jurisdiction over the complaint of the private respondent herein, who was the complainant before the COSLAP. The rule is that jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of the case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations of the complaint.[38] The nature of the action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations in the complaint irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for. Jurisdiction over the action does not depend on the defenses set forth in the answer, or in a motion to dismiss of the defendant.[39] Even if a tribunal or a quasi-judicial body of the government has jurisdiction over an action but exceeds its authority in the course of the proceedings, such act is null and void.[40]
2005-02-16
CALLEJO, SR., J.
For grave abuse of discretion to prosper as a ground for certiorari, it must first be demonstrated that the lower court or tribunal has exercised its power in an arbitrary and despotic manner, by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be patent and gross as would amount to an evasion or to a unilateral refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law. Grave abuse of discretion is not enough. Excess of jurisdiction signifies that the court, board or office, has jurisdiction over the case but has transcended the same or acted without authority.[22]
2005-01-21
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Even on the ground invoked by the petitioner, i.e., that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in quashing the Information, the present petition must be dismissed.  There is grave abuse of discretion where the public respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[35] The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[36]
2005-01-17
CALLEJO, SR., J.
In a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the petitioner is burdened to establish that the respondent tribunal acted without jurisdiction, meaning that it does not have the legal power to determine the case; or that it acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, meaning having been clothed with power to determine the case, it oversteps its authority as determined by law, or that it committed grave abuse of its discretion or acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its jurisdiction as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough.[21] In a petition for certiorari, the jurisdiction of the court is narrow in scope.  It is limited to resolving only errors of jurisdiction.  It is not to stray at will and resolve questions or issues such as errors of judgment.  Such errors are to be resolved by the appellate court on appeal by writ of error or via a petition for review on certiorari in this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. An error of judgment is one in which the Court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
2004-12-13
CALLEJO, SR., J.
Although there is no allegation in the petition at bar that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction, nonetheless, the petitioner made the following averments: that the graft court arbitrarily declared the AGFOI to be the offended party despite the plain language of the Informations and the nature of the crimes charged; and that the graft court blatantly violated basic procedural rules, thereby eschewing the speedy and orderly trial in the above cases. He, likewise, averred that the Sandiganbayan had no authority to allow the entry of a party, through a private prosecutor, which has no right to the civil liabilities of the accused arising from the crimes charged, or where the accused has no civil liabilities at all based on the nature of said crimes. The petitioner also faulted the Sandiganbayan for rejecting his opposition thereto, in gross violation of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Revised Penal Code. Indeed, such allegations are sufficient to qualify the petition as one under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As we held in People v. Court of Appeals:[42]
2004-11-24
CALLEJO, SR., J.
In sum, then, the decision of the CA setting aside the decision of the NLRC and reinstating the decision of the ELA is null and void.  As we ruled in People v. Court of Appeals:[29]
2004-10-25
CALLEJO, SR., J.
In People v. Court of Appeals,[9] we held that for a petition for certiorari to be granted, it must set out and demonstrate, plainly and distinctly, all the facts essential to establish a right to a writ.[10] The petitioner must allege in his petition and establish facts to show that any other existing remedy is not speedy or adequate[11] and that (a) the writ is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (b) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction; and, (c) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[12]
2004-10-19
CALLEJO, SR., J.
In People v. Court of Appeals,[22] we held that for a petition for certiorari or prohibition to be granted, it must set out and demonstrate, plainly and distinctly, all the facts essential to establish a right to a writ.[23] The petitioner must allege in his petition and establish facts to show that any other existing remedy is not speedy or adequate[24] and that (a) the writ is directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (b) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction; and, (c) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[25]
2004-09-29
CALLEJO, SR., J.
In the subsequent case of People v. Albano (163 SCRA 511 [1988]), this Court reiterated its previous ruling in the Bocar case, holding that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction and acted with grave abuse of discretion, tantamount to lack of jurisdiction, when it pre-emptively dismissed the case and as a consequence thereof, deprived the prosecution of its right to prosecute and prove its case, thereby violating its fundamental right to due process. With such violation, its orders are, therefore null and void and cannot constitute a proper basis for a claim of double jeopardy.[28] The respondent cannot even invoke double jeopardy, conformably to our ruling in People of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals,[29] where we had the occasion to state: The appellate court acted with grave abuse of its discretion when it ventured beyond the sphere of its authority and arrogated unto itself, in the certiorari proceedings, the authority to review perceived errors of the trial court in the exercise of its judgment and discretion, which are correctible only by appeal by writ of error.  Consequently, the decision of the CA acquitting respondent Almuete of the crime charged is a nullity. If a court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void.  The lack of statutory authority to make a particular judgment is akin to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  In this case, the CA is authorized to entertain and resolve only errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.
2004-07-07
CALLEJO, SR., J.
The well-entrenched rule is that the remedy of certiorari is not a substitute for the right of appeal lost by the party entitled to appeal especially if the right of appeal is lost through negligence.[28] The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[29] The existence and the availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the availment of the special civil action for certiorari.[30]
2004-06-29
CALLEJO, SR., J.
In People vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,[44] this Court ruled that the public respondent acts without jurisdiction if it does not have the legal power to determine the case; there is excess of jurisdiction where the respondent, being clothed with the power to determine the case, oversteps its authority as determined by law. There is grave abuse of discretion where the public respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment as to be said to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[45] Mere abuse of discretion is not enough.