PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v COURT OF APPEALS, et.

al
G.R. No. 128986
June 21 1999
Prepared by: Aidyl Pearl U. Perez
Section 21, Article 3, 1987 Constitution: (Termination of Jeopardy; Existence; Non-termination)
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a
law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for
the same act.

FACTS:
In a disco, Frederick Pacasum who boxed Ramil Maquiling who boxed him back. Seeing his brother in
a fight, the private respondent and accused Casan Maquiling (Maquiling) also boxed Frederick. Casan
contends that he just did that because Pasacum was mauling his brother. Thereafter they ran out of the
disco. Frederick and his companions followed outside where Ramil and his other companions were
waiting and another fist fight ensued. The facts as said by the prosecution and defense now vary
According to the prosecution, while this was going on, Casan went to his car and grabbed his .45
caliber pistol. Casan then shot Frederick 2x on the left thigh which caused him to fall to the ground.
Casan then approached Frederick and fired at the latters chest. Jojo Villarimo was also shot by Casan in
the leg. Frederick died while Villarimo suffered gunshot wounds that required medical attention for 6
months.
Casan on the other hand says that when they left the disco, Frederick and his companions followed him.
Upon reaching his car, he saw Frederick coming at his vehicle while holding a shotgun. That was when he
got his .45 caliber pistol. Frederick continued to approach him with the barrel pointed at him. Casan then
fired 2 warning shots in the air to deter Frederick from coming any closer. He then heard Raden Pacasum
tell Frederick to shoot Casan which he did hitting Casan in the hip. Because he could not stand up, and
fearing for his life, Casan aimed at Frederick and shot at him. His intention was not to kill but to disarm.
Villarimo then grabbed the shotgun released by Frederick so Casan had to try to disarm him too.
Iligan City Fiscal Lagcao charged Casan with homicide and frustrated homicide. Acting on petition by
private complainants, the DOJ amended the information to upgrade the charge from homicide to murder
by putting up the qualifying circumstance of treachery and abuse of superior strength. To both charges,
Casan entered a plea of not guilty. Trial ensued and the RTC rendered a decision finding Casan guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and serious physical injuries.
Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the RTCs decision and issued an order acquitting
Casan. CA acquitted Casan by accepting the claim of self-defense by Casan and holding that there were
flaws and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses thus giving more credence to the
defenses version of facts.
The Solicitor General (SG) filed the instant special civil action for certiorari assailing such decision of
the CA and demanding that the case be remanded to the RTC of Lanao del Norte so that the latter can
effect the entry of its judgment convicting Casan of homicide and serious physical injuries.

ISSUES:
W/N decision of CA is void ab initio for having been rendered in denial of due process and with grave
abuse of discretion?

HELD:
No. The CA decision must be upheld.
The rule on double jeopardy prohibits the state from appealing or filing a petition for review of a
judgment of acquittal that was based on the merits of the case. This rule is reflected in Section 2, Rule 122
of the Rules of Court which provides that any party may appeal from a final judgment or order, except if
the accused would be placed thereby in double jeopardy.

Prepared by: Aidyl Pearl U. Perez

 Double jeopardy is present if the following elements concur: (1) the accused individuals are charged
under a complaint or an information sufficient in form and substance to sustain their conviction; (2) the
court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused have been arraigned and have pleaded; and (4) they are convicted
or acquitted, or the case is dismissed without their express consent
In the case at bar, the 1st, 3rd and 4th requisites exist. What the Solicitor General questions is the
presence of the 2nd element and submits that CA was ousted of its jurisdiction, because it denied the
petitioner due process and because it committed grave abuse of discretion.
With regard to the contention of grave abuse of discretion, the SG imputes such to the CA because of
the latter's supposed misappreciation and wrongful assessment of factual evidence. However, the recourse
for such alleged misappreciation is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. It is a fundamental maxim in
law that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari,
which is extra ordinem, beyond the ambit of appeal. Factual matters cannot normally be inquired into by
the Supreme Court in a certiorari proceeding. This Court cannot be tasked to go over the proofs presented
by the parties and analyze, assess and weigh them again, in order to ascertain if the trial and the appellate
courts were correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence of one party or the other.
Also, the mere fact that a court erroneously decides a case does not necessarily deprive it of jurisdiction.
Thus even if a court commits a mistake in its judgment, the error does not vitiate the decision, considering
that it has jurisdiction over the case. The SC held that the CA did not commit any error amounting to
grave abuse of discretion. There was also no show of arbitrary or despotic exercise of power arising from
passion or hostility. Also, the finding of the CA that Casan acted in self-defense was based on the fact
that the circumstances satisfied the 3 requisites of self-defense.
On the due issue of denial of due process, the SG contends that the CA committed such violation when
it reviewed the trial courts assessment of the credibility of witnesses, despite its not having been raised as
an issue in the appeal brief. The SC does not agree with this because it is a basic rule that an appeal in a
criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review; and that the appellate court can correct errors,
though unassigned, that may be found in the appealed judgment.
The present constitution bars an appeal or a review of an acquittal based upon mere errors of judgment
of a lower court. Because the SG failed to demonstrate that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion
or denied the petitioner due process, even if certiorari may be used to correct an abusive acquittal, in the
case at bar, the acquittal should be upheld for such failure of the prosecution. An appeal or a petition for
review of a judgment of acquittal is barred by the rule on double jeopardy.

Prepared by: Aidyl Pearl U. Perez