G.R. No. 249002, August 04, 2021
PSI DINO WALLY COGASI, SPO2 JERRY SILAWON, SPO1 REYNALDO BADUA, AND PO2 GEOFFREY BANTULE, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SONNY RUFINO, JULIET ARCITA, JAY ARCITA, AND CARLOS TICAWA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

An Information was filed accusing petitioners, who were police officers, of the crime of Grave Threats. The prosecution alleged that on July 16, 2012, petitioners, while in civilian clothing, attempted to arrest private respondent Sonny Rufino for alleged drug selling. When private respondents blocked the arrest, petitioners drew their pistols, fired warning shots in the air, pointed their firearms at private respondents, and uttered, “Apay kayat yo nga agayos ti dara ditoy?” (Why, you want that blood will flow in this place?). Petitioners denied the allegations, claiming they were conducting a legitimate buy-bust operation against Sonny Rufino, who resisted arrest with the help of companions armed with pieces of wood, forcing them to retreat. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) convicted petitioners of Grave Threats. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially affirmed the conviction but, upon motion for reconsideration, reversed itself and acquitted petitioners. The RTC based its acquittal on the testimony of an impartial witness, Ramon Bulakit, a neighbor, who testified that petitioners did not point their guns at private respondents nor utter the threatening words; they only fired warning shots in the air before leaving. The RTC held that the warning shots were reasonably necessary in the performance of their duty to arrest Sonny Rufino amidst resistance. Private respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition, annulled the RTC’s judgment of acquittal, and found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Grave Threats. The CA held that the RTC gravely abused its discretion by relying on the testimony of the neighbor, whom it considered a distant witness, and by misappreciating the evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the Regional Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal and convicting petitioners of Grave Threats, thereby violating petitioners’ constitutional right against double jeopardy.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court GRANTED the Petition, declared the CA Decision and Resolution NULL and VOID, and reinstated the RTC’s judgment of acquittal. The Court held that the CA’s review of the RTC’s acquittal via a petition for certiorari was improper. A judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. The only exception to this rule is when the acquittal is rendered with grave abuse of discretion, such as where the prosecution was denied due process or where the trial was a sham. In this case, the CA based its reversal on the RTC’s alleged misappreciation of evidence, which constitutes a mere error of judgment, not an error of jurisdiction correctible by certiorari. The RTC’s acquittal was based on its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, particularly the impartial neighbor’s testimony that contradicted the prosecution’s version. Whether this evaluation was correct is immaterial; the fact of acquittal triggers the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The petition for certiorari before the CA contained no allegation or proof that the prosecution was denied due process or that the trial was a mockery. Therefore, the CA had no jurisdiction to review and reverse the acquittal.