G.R. No. 45151; July 24, 1936
ADOLFO O. RAMOS, petitioner, vs. MARIANO BUYSON LAMPA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, and C. N. HODGES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Adolfo O. Ramos sought certiorari to annul the judgment of respondent Judge Mariano Buysom Lampa, which acquitted respondent C. N. Hodges in a usury case (Criminal Case No. 11213). The trial court acquitted Hodges on the ground of prescription, finding that the complaint was filed on May 2, 1935, beyond the four-year prescriptive period from the last payment made on April 24, 1931. The petitioner, although not the offended party named in the information (which was Marcelo Buenaflor), argued that the judge exceeded his jurisdiction by dismissing the case after a prior judge had denied a motion to dismiss and by erroneously holding the crime had prescribed, claiming usurious interest was charged until April 29, 1933.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to annul the judgment of acquittal rendered by the respondent judge.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. First, the petitioner was not the real party in interest, as the information named Marcelo Buenaflor as the offended party. Second, the respondent judge had jurisdiction to try the case and render the acquittal, and his act of reconsidering the prior judge’s denial of the motion to dismiss was within his power as a successor judge. Any error in the determination of prescription was an error of law or fact, not an excess of jurisdiction correctible by certiorari. Third, granting the writ would violate the double jeopardy rule, as it would effectively reopen a case where the accused had already been acquitted. The remedy of certiorari does not lie to correct errors of judgment but only to address jurisdictional excesses.

AI Generated by Armztrong.