Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Section 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a
verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting
such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
Grave abuse of discretion has been defined as a "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that is patent
and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.
Where a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleges
grave abuse of discretion, the petitioner should establish that the
respondent court or tribunal acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or
despotic manner in the exercise of its jurisdiction as to be equivalent to lack
of jurisdiction. In Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio, the Court explained:
Instances when RULE 65 may availed of; when abuse of discretion amounts to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
1. Manifest disregard of the basic rules and procedures constitutes a grave abuse of discretion.
(MARVIN CRUZ AND FRANCISCO CRUZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
BONDSMAN, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 224974, July 03,
2017
2. Court’s order denying the withdrawal of the Information despite of no sufficient basis for a
finding of probable cause against respondents amounts grave abuse of discretion.
(VITO BESO, petitioner, vs. RITA ABALLE and HON. ROBERTO A. NAVIDAD, Acting Presiding
Judge, Branch 31, Regional Trial Court of Calbayog City, respondents. G.R. No. 134932
February 18, 2000)
Later on, the private complainant in the criminal case subsequently filed an Affidavit of
Desistance stating that he was no longer interested in pursuing his complaint against Cruz. On
October 2014, Assistant City Prosecutor Tan filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was granted by
Regional Trial court.
Cruz, through his bondsman Francisco, filed a Motion to Release Cash Bond. In an Order dated
January 7, 2015, the Regional Trial Court denied the Motion on the ground that the case was
dismissed through desistance and not through acquittal. The Motion for Reconsideration filed by
Francisco was likewise denied in an Order dated April 6, 2015.
The trial court denied the motion to release cash bond on the ground that the dismissal was
only due to the desistance of the complainant and not because the accused was acquitted or that
the crime was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUES: Whether or not the trial court decision denying the motion to release the cash bond
amounts to grave abused of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the Regional Trial court has no legal basis in denying the
motion to release cash bond based on that the case was dismissed due to desistance not through
acquittal or that the crime was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, the provision of
Section 22, Rule 114 is clear: the dismissal of the criminal case results to the automatic cancellation
of the bail bond.
This manifest disregard of the basic rules and procedures constitutes a grave abuse of discretion.
In State Prosecutors II Comilang and Lagman v. Judge Medel Belen, the Court held as inexcusable
abuse of authority the trial judge's "obstinate disregard of basic and established rule of law or
procedure." Such level of ignorance is not a mere error of judgment. It amounts to "evasion of a
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in
contemplation of law," or in essence, grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Needless to say, judges are expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes
and procedural laws. They must know the laws and apply them properly in good faith as judicial
competence requires no less.32
Ruling:
We agree with the CA that Judge Daguna limited herself only to Columna's affidavit.
wherein he implicated the respondents in the murders; DOJ resolution upholding the
prosecutor's recommended the dismissal of the charges. Judge Daguna failed to consider
that Columna's extrajudicial confession in his March 8, 2004 affidavit was not admissible as
evidence against respondents in view of the rule on res inter alios acta
Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. The rule on res inter alios acta provides that the
rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.
Here, aside from the extrajudicial confession, which was later on recanted, no other piece of
evidence was presented to prove the alleged conspiracy. There was no other prosecution
evidence, direct or circumstantial, which the extrajudicial confession could corroborate.
Therefore, the recanted confession of Columna, which was the sole evidence against
respondents, had no probative value and was inadmissible as evidence against them.
Considering the paucity and inadmissibility of the evidence presented against the
respondents, it would be unfair to hold them for trial. Once it is ascertained that no probable
cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused, they should be relieved
from the pain of going through a full blown court case
Indeed, at that stage of the proceedings, the duty of Judge Daguna was only to satisfy
herself whether there was probable cause or sufficient ground to hold respondents for trial
as co-conspirators. Given that she had no sufficient basis for a finding of probable cause
against respondents, her orders denying the withdrawal of the Information for murder
against them were issued with grave abuse of discretion.
3.