GR 228223; (June, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 228223, June 10, 2019
ROEL PENDOY Y POSADAS, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Roel Pendoy was charged with rape for allegedly sexually assaulting AAA, his 16-year-old househelp, on January 24, 2006. The prosecution evidence established that while AAA was washing clothes, Pendoy turned off the lights, forced her to lie down, and sexually assaulted her by inserting his finger and later his penis into her vagina. AAA pleaded for him to stop but was immobilized by fear, partly due to a rumor that Pendoy had previously killed someone. She reported the incident to a textmate, leading to police intervention and a medical examination that confirmed genital trauma consistent with sexual abuse.
Pendoy presented an alibi, claiming he was working as a tour guide the entire day and attended an association meeting in the evening, only returning home late at night where he was met by police. The Regional Trial Court convicted Pendoy of both simple rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and lascivious conduct under RA 7610. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. Pendoy then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the CA decision.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for certiorari and prohibition is the proper remedy to assail the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming Pendoy’s criminal convictions.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the correct remedy to challenge a judgment of conviction. The proper remedy from a decision of the Court of Appeals in a criminal case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. A Rule 65 petition is only available to correct errors of jurisdiction, such as when a tribunal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is not a substitute for a lost appeal or a remedy for errors of judgment, which involve the tribunal’s evaluation of evidence and application of law.
In this case, Pendoy sought to reverse the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility and rejection of his alibi. These are errors of judgment, not jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and are binding when affirmed by the appellate court. The petition for certiorari was therefore an improper remedy. Consequently, the Court did not proceed to review the merits of the convictions, which were already final and executory due to the wrong mode of appeal.