Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 109920 August 31, 2000
CEFERINO A. SORIANO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. ADORACION C. ANGELES, i !"# $%&%$it' %s P#"si(ig )u(g" o* t!"
C%+oo$% Cit', R"gio%+ T#i%+ Cou#t, ,#%$! C--I, %( RUEL GARCIA,
respondents.
D E C I S I O N
MENDO.A, J.:
his is a petition for certiorari to annul the decision rendered b! the Re"ional rial
Court, #ranch $%$, Caloocan Cit!, on March $&, $''( in Cri)inal Case No. C*+,-+,
.hich ac/uitted private respondent Ruel 0arcia of direct assault.
he prosecution1s evidence .as as follo.s2 Private respondent Ruel 0arcia and his
uncle, Pedro 0arcia, .ere )e)bers of the Caloocan police. Shortl! after )idni"ht on
Nove)ber -, $''$, the! bar"ed into the baran"a! hall of #aran"a! &3, 4one & in
Caloocan Cit!, loo5in" for petitioner Ceferino 6. Soriano, the baran"a! captain.
Private respondent "ave petitioner fist blo.s on the face four ti)es .ith his left hand,
.hile he po5ed a "un at hi) .ith his ri"ht hand, at the sa)e ti)e cursin" hi),
7Putang ina mo cabeza7 879ou son of a bitch chief7:. 6lthou"h there .ere four
baran"a! tanods 8Manuel Monto!a, 6rturo del Rosario, Ra)iro Sa)son, and
;rancisco Raton: in the baran"a! hall, the! could not co)e to the aid of petitioner
because the! .ere held at ba! b! Pedro 0arcia. he 0arcias then left .ith their
co)panions .ho had been .aitin" outside the hall. Petitioner .as treated for his
in<uries in the hospital.
Private respondent denied petitioner1s alle"ations. =e testified that he .ent to the
baran"a! hall in the evenin" of Nove)ber 3, $''$ because his !oun"er brother had
been reportedl! arrested and beaten up b! petitioner. 8It appears that the !oun"er
0arcia .as involved in a bra.l .ith Dennis Mones and a certain Oca)po. he! .ere
arrested and ta5en to the baran"a! hall. One of the bo!s, .ho .as apparentl! drun5,
vo)itted .hile their na)es .ere recorded. Petitioner, therefore, ordered the three
bo!s to be ta5en to the Ospital n" >aloo5an for a chec5*up.: 6s private respondent
sa. petitioner near the door of the baran"a! hall, he as5ed for the .hereabouts of
his brother and the reason for the latter1s arrest. 6pparentl! thin5in" that private
respondent .as tr!in" to intervene in the case he .as investi"atin", petitioner an"ril!
told private respondent to la! off2 "Walang pulis pulis dito7 879our bein" a police)an
doesn1t pull strin"s here7:. ?hen private respondent insisted on "oin" inside the
baran"a! hall, petitioner bloc5ed hi) and then pushed hi) on the chest. Private
respondent also pushed petitioner, causin" hi) to fall on a pile of ni"htstic5s and
in<ure hi)self. 6ll the ti)e, private respondent clai)ed he had his "un tuc5ed at his
.aist. Private respondent1s uncle, Pedro 0arcia, then arrived and too5 hi) ho)e.
In ac/uittin" private respondent, respondent @ud"e 6doracion C. 6n"eles found it
incredible that petitioner did not resist or even sa! an!thin" .hen private respondent
alle"edl! assaulted hi) and that none of the four baran"a! tanods .ho .ere near
hi) ca)e to his aid. She thou"ht that if petitioner had indeed been attac5ed, he
.ould have suffered )ore serious in<uries than a contusion on the forehead,
er!the)a on the chest, and a lacerated .ound on the lo.er lip. Respondent <ud"e
also eAcluded fro) the evidence the testi)onies of petitioner and baran"a! tanod
Manuel Monto!a on the "round that their testi)onies had not been for)all! offered in
evidence as re/uired b! Rule $(%, BB(+ to (& of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
=ence this petition for certiorari. Petitioner alle"es that the decision is void because it
.as not rendered b! an i)partial tribunal. =e contends that respondent <ud"e .as
7hell*bent on savin" the private respondent fro) conviction and had pre*<ud"ed the
case7 as sho.n b! the fact that 8$: on 6u"ust %3, $''%, before private respondent1s
arrai"n)ent, she called the parties and their counsels to her cha)bers and ur"ed
the) to settle the case, and, .hen petitioner refused, she did not set the case for
hearin" until after three .ee5s alle"edl! to provide a 7coolin" off7 periodC 8%: that at
the initial trial on Septe)ber $& and $3, $''%, respondent <ud"e a"ain called on the
parties to settle the case. Petitioner alle"es that, .hile respondent <ud"e stated in her
order of Septe)ber $&, $''% cancellin" the hearin" on that date that this .as done
to enable 6tt!. Maria Delibet Sa)pa"a to stud! the case as she had been appointed
as private respondent1s counsel onl! on that da!, the sa)e .as actuall! a preteAt,
the real reason bein" to "ive private respondent another opportunit! to persuade
petitioner to settle the case. he records in fact sho. that 6tt!. Sa)pa"a had been
private respondent1s counsel at the arrai"n)ent on 6u"ust %3, $''%C 8(: that
respondent <ud"e eAcluded the testi)onies of petitioner and his .itness, Manuel
Monto!a, for failure of the prosecution to offer for)all! the sa)e .hen the transcript
of steno"raphic notes sho.s this .as not so and that, at an! rate, the defense
.aived the ob<ection based on this "round b! cross*eAa)inin" petitioner and
Monto!aC and 8+: that respondent <ud"e failed to find private respondent "uilt!
despite the testi)onies of three e!e.itnesses 8baran"a! tanods Monto!a, del
Rosario, and Sa)son:. Petitioner therefore pra!s that a )istrial be declared and that
the case be ordered retried before another <ud"e.
On the other hand, private respondent Ruel 0arcia contends that, if at the outset,
petitioner doubted respondent <ud"e1s i)partialit!, he should have sou"ht her
inhibition ri"ht then and thereC that it .as not true respondent <ud"e called the parties
to her cha)bers on 6u"ust %3, $''% as onl! the arrai"n)ent too5 place on that da!C
that at said arrai"n)ent, his counsel, 6tt!. E)ilio #er)as, .as absent for .hich
reason respondent <ud"e desi"nated 6tt!. Maria Delibet S. Sa)pa"a to assist hi)C
that the schedule of the trial 8Septe)ber $&, $3, and %$, $''%: .as not fiAed b!
1
respondent <ud"e but b! the cler5 in char"e of the )atter, ta5in" into account the
schedule of the other cases assi"ned to the courtC that it .as onl! on the first da! of
trial on Septe)ber $&, $''% that respondent <ud"e first tal5ed to the parties, and,
upon learnin" that both .ere public officers, thou"ht it proper to as5 the) if the! .ere
not .illin" to settle their dispute, and seein" the parties and their counsels to be
receptive, she invited the) to her cha)bersC that as petitioner later appeared to have
second thou"hts and, on the other hand, as 6tt!. Sa)pa"a needed ti)e to prepare
for trial, respondent <ud"e postponed the trial to the neAt da!, Septe)ber $3, $''%C
that on Septe)ber $3, $''%, respondent <ud"e a"ain called the parties to her
cha)bers to see if the! had co)e to an! a"ree)ent, but as she .as told b!
petitioner that 7for hi) to .ithdra. his co)plaint a"ainst the private respondent, he
)ust have to transfer his residence first,7 thus i)pl!in" that he .ished the case
a"ainst private respondent to continue, respondent <ud"e proceeded .ith the trial
that )ornin".
Private respondent contends that the instant petition does not have the consent and
confor)it! of the public prosecutor but .as instead filed b! the private prosecutor
.ho does not have the re/uisite le"al personalit! to /uestion the decision ac/uittin"
hi).
Re/uired to co))ent, the Solicitor 0eneral ar"ues that this petition should be
dis)issed2
6 perusal of the <ud")ent of the trial court sho.ed that the parties .ere heard
confor)abl! to the nor)s of due process, evidence .as presented b! both parties
and dul! considered, their ar"u)ents .ere studied, anal!Eed, and assessed, and
<ud")ent .as rendered in .hich findin"s of facts and conclusions of la. .ere set
forth. hese conclusions of fact or la. cannot in an! sense be characteriEed as
outra"eousl! .ron" or )anifestl! )ista5en or .hi)sicall! or capriciousl! arrived at.
he .orst that )a! perhaps be said of the) is that the! are fairl! debatable and )a!
even be possibl! erroneous. #ut the! cannot be declared to have been )ade .ith
"rave abuse of discretion 8Bustamante vs. NLRC, 19 !CR" 1991:. Clearl!, there
.as no )istrial in this case .hich .ould .arrant the nullit! of the assailed <ud")ent.
$
he preli)inar! issue in this case is .hether the petition should be dis)issed
outri"ht because it .as filed .ithout the intervention of the OS0 as counsel for the
prosecution.
his /uestion is not a novel one. In the case of People v. !antiago,
%
this Court held2
he /uestion as to .hether or not F.P., as the private offended part!, can file this
special civil action for certiorari /uestionin" the validit! of said decision of the trial
court should be ans.ered in the affir)ative.
It is .ell*settled that in cri)inal cases .here the offended part! is the State, the
interest of the private co)plainant or the private offended part! is li)ited to the civil
liabilit!. hus, in the prosecution of the offense, the co)plainant1s role is li)ited to
that of a .itness for the prosecution. If a cri)inal case is dis)issed b! the trial court
or if there is an ac/uittal, an appeal therefro) on the cri)inal aspect )a! be
underta5en onl! b! the State throu"h the Solicitor 0eneral. Onl! the Solicitor 0eneral
)a! represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. he private offended part! or
co)plainant )a! not ta5e such appeal. =o.ever, the said offended part! or
co)plainant )a! appeal the civil aspect despite the ac/uittal of the accused.
In a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section $, Rule 3& of the Rules of
Court .herein it is alle"ed that the trial court co))itted a "rave abuse of discretion
a)ountin" to lac5 of <urisdiction or on other <urisdictional "rounds, the rules state that
the petition )a! be filed b! the person aggrieved. In such case, the a""rieved parties
are the State and the private offended part! or co)plainant. he co)plainant has an
interest in the civil aspect of the case so he )a! file such special civil action
/uestionin" the decision or action of the respondent court on <urisdictional "rounds.
In so doin", co)plainant should not brin" the action in the na)e of the People of the
Philippines. he action )a! be prosecuted in na)e of said co)plainant.
(
he above rulin" has been reiterated in #e la Rosa v. Court o$ "ppeals
+
and Perez v.
%agono& Rural Ban', (nc.,
&
in .hich the le"al personalit! of private co)plainant to
file a special civil action of certiorari /uestionin" the dis)issal b! the trial court of a
cri)inal case has been upheld sub<ect to the li)itation that the accused1s ri"ht to
double <eopard! is not violated.
3
6s eAplained b! the Court in People v. Court o$
"ppeals2
-
-
6 <ud")ent rendered .ith "rave abuse of discretion or .ithout due process is void,
does not eAist in le"al conte)plation, and, thus, cannot be the source of an ac/uittal.
=o.ever, .here the petition de)onstrates )ere errors in <ud")ent not a)ountin" to
"rave abuse of discretion or deprivation of due process, the .rit of certiorari cannot
issue. 6 revie. of the alle"ed errors of <ud")ent cannot be )ade .ithout tra)plin"
upon the ri"ht of the accused a"ainst double <eopard!.
G
In short, petitioner )ust establish that the <ud")ent of ac/uittal resulted fro) a
)istrial so as not to place private respondent, as accused, in double <eopard!.
In onl! one case has the Court cate"oricall! declared a )istrial, and that is the case
of )alman v. !andiganba&an.
'
Petitioner .ould have the Court dra. parallelis)s
bet.een this case and )alman .here the Court nullified the <ud")ent of ac/uittal of
the Sandi"anba!an in Cri)inal Case Nos. $,,$, and $,,$$ entitled 7People of the
Philippines v. 0eneral Duther Custodio, et al.7
his cases is, ho.ever, a far cr! fro) )alman. here, it .as sho.n that evidence
.as suppressed in order to <ustif! the ac/uittal of the accused. his Court held that
7t*e secret +alaca,ang con$erence at .hich the authoritarian President called
to"ether the Presidin" @ustice of the Sandi"anba!an HManuel Pa)aranI and
anodba!an H#ernardoI ;ernandeE and the entire prosecution panel headed b!
2
Deput! anodba!an HManuelI =errera and told the) ho. to handle and ri" 8moro-
moro: the trial and the close )onitorin" of the entire proceedin"s to assure the pre*
deter)ined i"no)inious final outco)e are .it*out parallel and precedent in our
annals and <urisprudence.7
$,
In contrast, petitioner does not alle"e an! such irre"ularit! in the trial of private
respondent. =e si)pl! clai)s that respondent <ud"e1s bias and partialit! denied the
prosecution a fair and i)partial trial. ?h! respondent <ud"e .as biased for the
defense petitioner does not sa!. It is note.orth! that petitioner does not even dispute
private respondent1s alle"ation that respondent <ud"e .as not personall! ac/uainted
.ith hi) until she heard the cri)inal case a"ainst hi).
It is pertinent at this point to cite certain principles laid do.n b! the Court re"ardin"
the dis/ualification of a <ud"e for lac5 of the ob<ectivit! that due process re/uires. It is
settled that )ere suspicion that a <ud"e is partial to one of the parties is not enou"hC
there should be evidence to prove the char"e.
$$
#ias and pre<udice cannot be
presu)ed, especiall! .ei"hed a"ainst a <ud"e1s sacred alle"ation under oath of
office to ad)inister <ustice .ithout respect to an! person and do e/ual ri"ht to the
poor and the rich.
$%
here )ust be a sho.in" of bias and pre<udice ste))in" fro) an
eAtra<udicial source resultin" in an opinion in the )erits on so)e basis other than
.hat the <ud"e learned fro) his participation in the case.
$(
he ar"u)ents .hich petitioner advances b! .a! of proof of respondent1s <ud"e1s
alle"ed bias are not persuasive.
Respondent <ud"e1s efforts to have the parties arrive at an a)icable settle)ent is not
evidence of partialit! for private respondent. She could have been )otivated b!
factors other than a desire to clear private respondent of cri)inal liabilit!, i.e., the
clearin" of her court doc5et or, as pointed out b! the OS0 in its co))ent,
$+
in settin"
a "ood eAa)ple considerin" that petitioner and private respondent .ere nei"hbors
occup!in" public offices char"ed .ith the )aintenance of peace and order in the
co))unit!.
6s for the alle"ation that the trial .as not held until after three .ee5s to "ive private
respondent )ore ti)e to persuade petitioner to a)icabl! settle the case, it has been
sho.n that it .as not respondent <ud"e but court personnel in char"e of schedulin"
cases .ho assi"ned the dates of trial ta5in" into account the court calendar. he
cancellation of the Septe)ber $&, $''% hearin", on the other hand, .as )ade to
"ive private respondent1s counsel, 6tt!. Maria Delibet Sa)pa"a, ti)e to stud! the
case and prepare for trial. 6lthou"h 6tt!. Sa)pa"a had once appeared in behalf of
private respondent, it .as for the purpose of assistin" the latter at the arrai"n)ent
because the re"ular counsel .as absent. 6s ne. counsel, 6tt!. Sa)pa"a needed to
stud! the case. 6 postpone)ent to the neAt da!, Septe)ber $3, $''%, .as not an
unreasonable re/uest. Indeed, this did not involve resettin" the case since
Septe)ber $3, $''% had been ori"inall! desi"nated as one of the initial trial dates.
Nor is there an! sho.in" that respondent <ud"e decided the cri)inal case on
"rounds other than its )erits. 6 readin" of her decision ac/uittin" private respondent
sho.s that the sa)e .as )ade on the basis of her evaluation of the evidence of the
prosecution and of the defense. #ecause of the conflictin" versions of the parties as
to .hat reall! happened, her decision .as necessaril! based on her appreciation of
the credibilit! of the .itnesses for the prosecution and the defense.
rue, petitioner is correct in his ar"u)ent that respondent <ud"e )ista5enl! eAcluded
fro) the evidence his testi)on! as .ell as that of prosecution .itness Manuel
Monto!a on the "round that the sa)e had not been for)all! offered at the ti)e the!
.ere called to the .itness stand. ;or the fact .as that petitioner and Monto!a had
been cross*eAa)ined at len"th b! the defense and, therefore, the latter had .aived
ob<ection to the failure of the prosecution to )a5e an offer of the evidence.
$&
It has
been held in )o v. Court o$ "ppeals,
$3
ho.ever, that diver"ence of opinion bet.een
the trial <ud"e and a part!1s counsel as to the ad)issibilit! of evidence is not proof of
bias or partialit!. #esides, thou"h respondent <ud"e stated in her decision that the
testi)onies of petitioner and Monto!a 7cannot be considered b! this Court as
constitutin" part of the evidence for the prosecution,7 her decision sho.s that she
actuall! considered the testi)onies in piecin" to"ether the prosecution1s version of
the events and in evaluatin" the evidence in the case. he testi)onies of petitioner
and Monto!a .ere after all referred to b! the other .itnesses for the prosecution,
na)el!, del Rosario and Sa)son. hus respondent <ud"e1s decision reads in
pertinent part2
he alle"ation of the private co)plainant that he neither resisted the punches of the
accused nor said an!thin" to the latter is /uite hard to believe. No rational )an .ould
allo. another to hurt hi) .ithout offerin" an! for) of resistance, for he is instinctivel!
concerned H.ithI his self*preservation. It is )ore in consonance .ith hu)an nature
that .hen one is hurt, especiall! if the feelin" of innocence is .ithin hi), to
i))ediatel! retaliate to an un<ust act.
6nother e/uall! unbelievable alle"ation is that the four baran"a! tanods <ust stood
and .atched their baran"a! captain .hile he .as bein" )auled. here .ere four of
the) inside the hall !et no one even dared to defend herein private co)plainant or
stop herein accused. If the! could not do it for their baran"a! captain and inside their
hall, ho. can the! be eApected to protect the residents of their baran"a! outside their
hallJ
;urther)ore, if herein private co)plainant .as indeed )auled, he should have
suffered a lot )ore serious in<uries than he alle"edHl!I incurred. Considerin" their
alle"ation that the baran"a! tanods .ere "uarded at the point of a "un b! Pedro
0arcia, herein accused thus had all the ti)e and opportunit! to inflict on the private
co)plainant as )an! serious in<uries as he could. #ut the results of the )edical
eAa)ination belie this point.
?ell*settled is the rule that the prosecution )ust rel! on the stren"th of its o.n
evidence and not on the .ea5ness of the defense 8People vs. Dennis MendoEa, %,(
3
SCR6 $+G, 0.R. No. G&$-3, October %$, $''$:. 6fter a thorou"h eAa)ination of the
pieces of evidence presented b! the prosecution, the latter failed to fulfill the test of
)oral certaint! and establish such de"ree of proof necessar! to support conviction.
7If the inculpator! facts and circu)stances are capable of one or )ore eAplanations,
one of .hich is consistent .ith innocence and the other consistent .ith his "uilt, then
the evidence does not fulfill the test of )oral certaint! and is not sufficient to support
a conviction. he constitutional presu)ption of innocence stands until overthro.n b!
stron" and convincin" evidence, one of .hich .ill prove "uilt be!ond reasonable
doubt7 8People vs. 0ina Saha"un, $G% SCR6 '$, 0.R. No. 3%,%+, ;ebruar! $%,
$'',:.
he testi)onies of the prosecution .itnesses are )erel! unfounded accusations
insufficient to "ain conviction. In the case of People vs. )uinto, $G+ SCR6 %G-, 0.R.
GG+,,, 6pril 3, $'',, the Supre)e Court held2 76ccusation is not s!non!)ous .ith
"uilt. he accused is protected b! the constitutional presu)ption of innocence .hich
the prosecution )ust overco)e .ith contrar! proof be!ond reasonable doubt. Even if
the defense is .ea5, the case a"ainst the accused )ust fail if the prosecution is even
.ea5er. . . . If the prosecution has not sufficientl! established the "uilt of the accused,
he has a ri"ht to be ac/uitted and released even if he presents nau"ht a shred of
evidence.7
$-
hat respondent <ud"e believed the evidence of the defense )ore than that of the
prosecution does not indicate that she .as biased. She )ust have si)pl! found the
defense .itnesses to be )ore credible.
$G
Indeed, no "rave abuse of discretion )a! be attributed to a court si)pl! because of
its alle"ed )isappreciation of facts and evidence. 6 .rit of certiorari cannot be used
to correct a lo.er tribunal1s evaluation of the evidence and factual findin"s. hus, in
People v. Court o$ "ppeals,
$'
the Court dis)issed a petition for certiorari filed b! the
prosecution fro) a decision of the Court of 6ppeals reversin" that of the trial court
and ac/uittin" the accused of ho)icide and serious ph!sical in<uries on the "round
that he acted in self*defense. he Court held2
o sho. "rave abuse of discretion, herein petitioner contends that Respondent Court
of 6ppeals co))itted )anifest bias and partialit! in renderin" the assailed Decision.
It clai)s that Respondent Court i"nored and discarded 7uncontroverted ph!sical
evidence7 .hich the trial <ud"e had relied upon. ;urther)ore, it alle"edl! erred in
findin" that he had 7baseHdI his decision on the testi)on! of .itnesses .hose
de)eanor he did not personall! .itness.7 In addition, it supposedl! harped on
insi"nificant inconsistencies in the testi)onies of so)e prosecution .itnesses, .hile
un/uestionin"l! acceptin" the private respondent1s clai) of self*defense.
;inall!, the solicitor "eneral )aintains that the assailed Decision 8$: failed to discuss
the effect of Ma/uilin"1s escape fro) confine)ent durin" the pendenc! of the caseC
8%: shifted the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove Ma/uilin"1s "uilt, althou"h
he ad)itted 5illin" the victi) in self*defenseC 8(: i"nored the ph!sical evidence K
particularl! the do.n.ard tra<ector! of the bullets that had hit the t.o victi)s, thereb!
sho.in" that private respondent .as still standin" .hen he shot the)C and the
shot"un .ound sustained b! private respondent, .hich disabled hi) and rendered
hi) incapable of shootin" the victi)s.
It is /uite obvious fro) the fore"oin" alle"ations that petitioner i)puted "rave abuse
of discretion to Respondent Court because of the latter1s supposed )isappreciation
and .ron"ful assess)ent of $actual evidence. =o.ever, as earlier stressed, the
present recourse is a petition for certiorari under Rule 3&. It is a funda)ental
aphoris) in la. that a revie. of facts and evidence is not the province of the
eAtraordinar! re)ed! of certiorariC .hich is e/tra ordinem K be!ond the a)bit of
appeal. Stated else.ise, factual )atters cannot nor)all! be in/uired into b! the
Supre)e Court in a certiorari proceedin". his Court cannot be tas5ed to "o over the
proofs presented b! the parties and anal!Ee, assess and .ei"h the) a"ain, in order
to ascertain if the trial and the appellate courts .ere correct in accordin" superior
credit to this or that piece of evidence of one part! or the other.
he )ere fact that a court erroneousl! decides a case does not necessaril! deprive it
of <urisdiction.10.p*i1 hus, assu)in" arguendo that a court co))its a )ista5e in
its <ud")ent, the error does not vitiate the decision, considerin" that it has <urisdiction
over the case.
6n eAa)ination of the 3&*pa"e Decision rendered b! the Court of 6ppeals sho.s no
patent and "ross error a)ountin" to "rave abuse of discretion. Neither does it sho.
an arbitrar! or despotic eAercise of po.er arisin" fro) passion or hostilit!. . . .
%,
;inall!, petitioner1s clai) that respondent <ud"e .as biased is belied b! his failure to
)ove for respondent <ud"e1s inhibition. Petitioner1s clai) that he did not do so
because of his 7belief and desire for said respondent <ud"e to finall! return to her
nor)al sense of fairness7 is a feeble eAcuse. =is failure to file such )otion stands as
one )ore star5 difference bet.een this case and )alman since the private
prosecutors in the latter case lost no ti)e in see5in" the dis/ualification of the
)e)bers of the Sandi"anba!an on "rounds of )anifest bias and partialit! for the
defense.
%$
/HEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lac5 of )erit.
SO ORDERED.
4