G.R. No. 104147 , December 8, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE ESTHER NOBLES BANS, Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Olongapo City, VICENTE MAGSAYSAY and GIL MAGSAYSAY, respondents.

FACTS

Acting on information, the Armed Forces of the Philippines applied for a search warrant with Judge Nicias Mendoza of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch 74. Finding probable cause, Judge Mendoza issued the warrant. A search of the residence of private respondents Vicente and Gil Magsaysay yielded several unlicensed firearms. Consequently, an information for Illegal Possession of Firearms under P.D. No. 1866 was filed against them. The case was raffled to RTC Branch 72, presided by respondent Judge Esther Bans. The accused pleaded not guilty.
After the prosecution rested its case, the accused filed a Demurrer to Evidence, arguing that the search warrant was illegally issued, rendering the seized firearms inadmissible. Despite a prior order from the issuing judge (Branch 74) upholding the warrant’s validity, respondent Judge Bans granted the demurrer and acquitted the accused. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied on the ground that reconsideration would place the accused in double jeopardy. The People then filed this special civil action for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a proper remedy to annul the respondent judge’s order granting the demurrer to evidence and acquitting the accused.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy. The respondent judge, in granting the demurrer to evidence, acted within her jurisdiction. The determination of the admissibility of the evidence, including the validity of the search warrant, was within the court’s authority in trying the criminal case. While the general rule is that a co-equal court cannot invalidate another court’s search warrant, an exception exists when the criminal case is raffled to a different branch. In such instances, all incidents relating to the warrant’s validity should be consolidated with the branch trying the case to avoid confusion and promote orderly administration of justice.
Any error committed by the trial court in evaluating the evidence or in its legal conclusions was, at most, an error of judgment, not an error of jurisdiction. A judgment of acquittal is immediately final and cannot be appealed by the prosecution without violating the constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy. This rule applies even if the acquittal is based on an erroneous interpretation of law or facts. The remedy of certiorari does not lie to correct errors of judgment. Therefore, the acquittal must stand, and the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.