"x x x.
It is fitting to reiterate the holding of the Court in People v. Tria-Tirona,[6] to wit:
x x x it is clear in this jurisdiction that after trial on the merits, an acquittal is immediately final and cannot be appealed on the ground of double jeopardy. The only exception where double jeopardy cannot be invoked is where there is a finding of mistrial resulting in a denial of due process.
x x x x
x x x Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors by the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, and its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law.[7]
The Court further expounded in First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals,[8] thus:
It is a fundamental aphorism in law that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, which isextra ordinem - beyond the ambit of appeal. In certiorari proceedings, judicial review does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof. It does not include an inquiry as to the correctness of the evaluation of evidence. Any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors of the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, or its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law. It is not for this Court to re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of the witnesses or substitute the findings of fact of the court a quo. (Emphasis supplied.)[9]
The aim of the present petition is to overturn the Sandiganbayan's conclusion that “there is no doubt that dredging work was performed along the Palto and Pakulayo Rivers”[10] and the “project was actually undertaken and accomplished by the said contractor x x x [h]ence the payment made to the latter was justified.”[11] From such finding, the trial court held that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of all the elements of the offense charged, resulting in the acquittal of private respondents. Petitioner points out that the lower court erred in arriving at such conclusion, since prosecution evidence shows that as of September 2, 1991 to October 2, 1991, when the dredging works were supposedly conducted, there was as yet no approved plans and specifications as required by Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1594 before bidding for construction contracts can proceed. Petitioner doubts that the proper procedure for bidding had been followed. Petitioner then asks how the project could have proceeded on September 2, 1991 when the required plan was only dated November 18, 1991.
The foregoing is essentially an issue involving an alleged error of judgment, not an error of jurisdiction. Petitioner has not convincingly shown that the prosecution has indeed been deprived of due process of law. There is no showing that the trial court hampered the prosecution's presentation of evidence in any way. On the contrary, the prosecution was given ample opportunity to present its ten witnesses and all necessary documentary evidence. The case was only submitted for decision after the parties had duly rested their case. Respondent trial court clearly stated in its decision which pieces of evidence led it to its conclusion that the project was actually undertaken, justifying payment to the contractor. Clearly, petitioner failed to show that there was mistrial resulting in denial of due process.
In People v. Tria-Tirona,[12] the Court held that when the trial court arrives at its decision only after all the evidence had been considered, weighed and passed upon, then “any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari.”[13]
In sum, there being no mistrial in this case, the acquittal of private respondents can no longer be reviewed by the Court as this would constitute a violation of the constitutional right against double jeopardy. Moreover, since the alleged error is only one of judgment, petitioner is not entitled to the extraordinary writ of certiorari.
x x x."
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner,
- versus –
HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION), ABELARDO P. PANLAQUI, RENATO B. VELASCO, ANGELITO PELAYO and WILFREDO CUNANAN,
Respondents.
|
G.R. No. 173396
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
VELASCO, JR., *
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN, ** and
ABAD, JJ.
Promulgated:
September 22, 2010
|
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
