GR 142051; (February, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 142051 ; February 24, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (FOURTH DIVISION), CLAUDIO FRANCISCO, JR. and RUDY PACAO, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents Claudio Francisco, Jr. and Rudy Pacao, along with several others, were charged with Murder for the fatal shooting of Marcial Azada inside a restaurant. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Francisco of homicide and Pacao of attempted murder. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and acquitted both respondents. The appellate court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, specifically noting the failure to establish the corpus delicti of the crime charged and to overcome the presumption of innocence.
The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65, arguing that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in acquitting the respondents. The petition essentially seeks a review of the appellate court’s judgment of acquittal, contending that its findings were grounded on misapprehensions of fact.
ISSUE
Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a proper remedy to assail a judgment of acquittal by the Court of Appeals.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. The constitutional right against double jeopardy prohibits a second jeopardy for the same offense. For double jeopardy to attach, the following elements must concur: (1) a valid indictment, (2) before a competent court, (3) the defendant had pleaded, and (4) the defendant was acquitted, convicted, or the case was dismissed without his express consent. All these elements are present in this case.
The Court emphasized that the rule against double jeopardy is a fundamental constitutional safeguard intended to afford the accused final repose and protect him from government oppression through repeated prosecution. A writ of certiorari cannot be used to correct errors of judgment or review the factual findings of the acquitting court. It is only available for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors in the court’s evaluation of the evidence. The People’s remedy from an erroneous acquittal is not appeal or certiorari, as this would place the accused in double jeopardy. The petition, by seeking a reversal of the acquittal, would violate this constitutional protection. Therefore, the acquittal by the Court of Appeals must be accorded finality.