This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In a criminal case in which the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the offended party is limited to the civil liability arising therefrom. Hence, if a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, a reconsideration of the order of dismissal or acquittal may be undertaken, whenever legally feasible, insofar as the criminal aspect thereof is concerned and may be made only by the public prosecutor; or in the case of an appeal, by the State only, through the OSG. x x x. On the alleged wrong mode of appeal by petitioner, suffice it to state that the rule is well-settled that in appeals by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only errors of law may be raised,[14] and herein petitioner certainly raised a question of law. | |||||
|
2003-09-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to the third ground for the petition, suffice it to say that the rule is well-settled that in appeals by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only errors of law may be raised.[20] The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[21] Certiorari as a mode of appeal under Rule 45 should be distinguished from certiorari as an original action under Rule 65. In an appeal by certiorari, the petition is based on questions of law which the appellant desires the appellate court to resolve. In certiorari as an original action, the only question that may be raised is whether or not the lower court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.[22] An allegation of grave abuse of discretion like the one made by the petitioner here, being beyond the scope of appeals by certiorari, deserves scant consideration. | |||||