G.R. No. 118251 . June 29, 2001.
METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, vs. HON. REGINO T. VERIDIANO II, Presiding Judge, RTCManila, Branch 31, and DOMINADOR ONG, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company filed a petition for certiorari challenging the Decision dated November 28, 1994 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 31, which acquitted private respondent Dominador Ong of violation of Presidential Decree No. 115 (Trust Receipts Law) in relation to Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information charged that on or about September 6 and 15, 1989, private respondent, as Treasurer of Sun Ray Metal, Inc., executed two trust receipts in favor of the petitioner bank, receiving in trust aluminum wires and brass sheets valued at P413,133.00. He was obligated to sell the goods and turn over the proceeds, or to return the goods if unsold, but he allegedly misappropriated or converted the same. Private respondent pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s case established that Sun Ray Metal, Inc. purchased the materials through letters of credit issued by the petitioner bank, and private respondent, as corporate treasurer, executed the trust receipts and bound himself jointly and severally with the corporation. Despite demands, he failed to pay or return the goods. The defense presented evidence that private respondent signed the trust receipts in blank, acted only in his corporate capacity, and that the obligation was novated by a verbal restructuring agreement to which he agreed and made payments. The RTC acquitted private respondent, reasoning that he was not duly authorized to represent the corporation and that a restructuring agreement novated the obligation. Petitioner assails the acquittal, arguing grave abuse of discretion and contending that the case falls under an exception to the double jeopardy rule.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari assailing the judgment of acquittal should be granted, considering the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

RULING

No, the petition is dismissed. The constitutional right against double jeopardy bars the appeal of a judgment of acquittal. The exceptions to this rule, where a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be availed of, occur only when the trial court commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution is denied due process. The cases cited by petitioner (Gorion, Bocar, Portugal, and Galman) are inapplicable as they involved situations where the prosecution was denied a fair opportunity to present its case, constituting a violation of due process. In the instant case, the prosecution was able to present its evidence, formally offer its exhibits, and present a rebuttal witness. The trial court’s decision was based on its evaluation of the evidence, and its alleged error in appreciating the evidence or interpreting the law does not constitute grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. Furthermore, the petitioner, as the private offended party, lacks the legal personality to appeal the criminal aspect of the case; its remedy is to appeal the civil aspect only, which it did not do in its prayer. The petition is dismissed for lack of merit and for petitioner’s lack of legal personality to appeal the acquittal.