G.R. No. 192727 ; January 9, 2013
RAUL B. ESCALANTE, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Raul B. Escalante, then Municipal Mayor of Almagro, Samar, was charged with violation of the election gun ban under Section 261(q) of the Omnibus Election Code and illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866. The charges stemmed from an incident on April 3, 1995, during an election period, at a barangay fiesta. The prosecution alleged that Escalante, while acting as guest of honor, had a .45 caliber pistol tucked in his waist. After being heckled during his speech, he approached a rival group, drew the firearm, and fired a shot upwards before being disarmed. The defense claimed the firearm belonged to a police officer and was accidentally discharged during a struggle.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Escalante of both charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Escalante then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, arguing the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the conviction despite alleged errors in appreciating the evidence and imposing an erroneous penalty for illegal possession.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can review, via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, the alleged errors of the Court of Appeals in its appreciation of evidence and imposition of penalty, after the CA decision had attained finality.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The proper remedy from the CA decision was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which must be filed within 15 days from notice of judgment. The records showed Escalante received the CA Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration on March 16, 2009, making the decision final and executory on March 31, 2009. His Rule 65 petition filed in April 2010 was thus filed out of time.
The Court emphasized that the special civil action of certiorari is only available when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It is not a remedy for errors of judgment, which are correctible by appeal, but for errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Escalante’s allegations pertained to errors in factual and legal conclusions, which are errors of judgment, not jurisdiction. Consequently, the CA decision had attained finality. Under the doctrine of finality of judgment, a final decision becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified to correct even erroneous conclusions of fact or law.