G.R. No. 140690; June 19, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. NAZAR U. CHAVEZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 18 of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, and SPO1 Reynaldo Lim de la Victoria, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent SPO1 Reynaldo Lim de la Victoria was charged with murder for the shooting of Jeffrey G. Wabe. He filed an application for bail before respondent Judge Nazar U. Chavez. The prosecution opposed the bail and presented two witnesses. On October 9, 1997, respondent judge granted bail on the ground that the evidence of guilt was not strong. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the People, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) on January 30, 1998, assailing the grant of bail. The CA dismissed the petition on July 2, 1998, citing that certiorari corrects only jurisdictional defects, not errors of judgment, and that the petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration with the trial court first. The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration. The CA subsequently issued a Resolution on October 20, 1998, denying the motion for reconsideration. The OSG claimed it did not receive this denial resolution. On June 4, 1999, the OSG received an Entry of Judgment stating the CA’s July 2, 1998 decision had become final on November 13, 1998. The OSG filed a Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment, arguing it was premature due to non-receipt of the denial resolution. The CA denied this motion based on a report from its Division Clerk stating the OSG had received the denial resolution on October 28, 1998. The People then filed this petition for review.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals deprived the petitioner of due process by denying the Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment without giving it a chance to prove non-receipt of the resolution denying its motion for reconsideration.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari, thereby allowing the grant of bail in a murder case allegedly despite strong evidence of guilt.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for failure to file a prior motion for reconsideration with the trial court.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition.
1. On the due process issue: The Court found no deprivation of due process. The CA relied on the official report of its Division Clerk, which is accorded the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. The petitioner’s claim of an anomalous internal receipt procedure within the OSG does not overcome this presumption. The negligence of a government officer generally binds the government, and the OSG failed to present clear evidence to rebut the presumption of receipt.
2. On the grant of bail and the propriety of certiorari: The Court held that the CA correctly dismissed the certiorari petition. The grant or denial of bail rests on the trial judge’s discretion, based on a summary evaluation of the evidence to determine if guilt is strong. An error in this exercise of discretion, if not tainted with grave abuse, is merely an error of judgment correctible by appeal, not by certiorari. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The trial judge’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility and the finding of material discrepancies in their testimonies were within his discretionary power.
3. On the necessity of a motion for reconsideration: The general rule requiring a motion for reconsideration before filing a certiorari petition was correctly applied. The petitioner’s claim of urgency to prevent witness harassment was not a sufficient exception to excuse non-compliance with this rule.