This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-09-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is fitting to reiterate the holding of the Court in People v. Tria-Tirona,[6] to wit: x x x it is clear in this jurisdiction that after trial on the merits, an acquittal is immediately final and cannot be appealed on the ground of double jeopardy. The only exception where double jeopardy cannot be invoked is where there is a finding of mistrial resulting in a denial of due process. | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| What the OSG is questioning, therefore, are errors of judgment. This, however, cannot be resolved without violating Abordo's constitutionally guaranteed right against double jeopardy. An appellate court in a petition for certiorari cannot review a trial court's evaluation of the evidence and factual findings. Errors of judgment cannot be raised in a Rule 65 petition as a writ of certiorari can only correct errors of jurisdiction or those involving the commission of grave abuse of discretion. In the case of People v. Hon. Tria-Tirona,[18] it was written: 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. 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. 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. Since no error of jurisdiction can be attributed to public respondent in her assessment of the evidence, certiorari will not lie. [Emphasis supplied] | |||||
|
2007-07-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is a fundamental aphorism in law that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, which is extra ordinem - beyond the ambit of appeal.[16] In certiorari proceedings, judicial review does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof.[17] It does not include an inquiry as to the correctness of the evaluation of evidence.[18] 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 which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. 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. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors of the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, or its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law.[19] It is not for this Court to re- examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of the witnesses or substitute the findings of fact of the court a quo.[20] | |||||
|
2007-02-21 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| "fn">[40] or (2) Where there has been a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances.[41] However, in this case, we find that the exceptions do not exist. | |||||