G.R. No. 236618. August 27, 2020.

JCLV REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

petitioner, vs. PHIL GALICIA MANGALI, respondent.

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Office of the Solicitor

General; In any criminal case or proceeding, only the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) may bring or defend actions on behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State before
the Supreme Court (SC) and the Court of Appeals (CA).·In any
criminal case or proceeding, only the OSG may bring or defend
actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the
People or State before the Supreme Court and the CA. This is
explicitly provided under Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book
III of the 1987 Administrative Code of the Philippines, thus: Section
35. Power and Functions.·The Office of the Solicitor General shall
represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and
instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation,
proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a
lawyer. When authorized by the President or head of the office
concerned, it shall also represent government-owned or -controlled
corporations. The Office of the Solicitor General shall constitute the
law office of the Government and, as such, shall discharge duties
requiring the service of a lawyer. It shall have the following specific
power and functions: (1) Represent the Government in the
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal
proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or
tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the
Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.
x x x The rationale behind this rule is that in a criminal case, the
party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the State
and not the private complainant. The interest of the private
offended party is restricted only to the civil liability. In the
prosecution of the offense, the complainantÊs role is limited to that
of a witness for the prosecution such that when a criminal case is
dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal on
the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through
the

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

455

VOL. 947, AUGUST 27, 2020 455

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

OSG. The private offended party may not take such appeal, but
may only do so as to the civil aspect of the case. Differently stated,
the private offended party may file an appeal without the
intervention of the OSG, but only insofar as the civil liability of the
accused is concerned. Also, the complainant may file a special civil
action for certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG, but
only to the end of preserving his interest in the civil aspect of the
case.
Same; Same; Remedy in Case of Acquittal or Dismissal of
Criminal Cases; The acquittal of the accused or dismissal of the
criminal case may be assailed through a Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the grounds of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of
due process rendering the judgment void.·Notably, this Court has
already acknowledged that the acquittal of the accused or dismissal
of the criminal case may be assailed through a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the grounds of
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
or a denial of due process rendering the judgment void. In People v.
Judge Santiago, 174 SCRA 143 (1989), the private offended party
filed a special civil action for certiorari on the ground that trial
court acquitted the accused without trial on the merits despite the
conflicting positions of the parties. This Court ruled that the
acquittal is a nullity for want of due process because the trial court
deprived the prosecution an opportunity to present evidence. Also,
we declared that the victim can avail certiorari to question the
validity of acquittal.
 Same; Same; The first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the
crime but to establish the identity of the criminal, for even if the
commission of the crime can be proven, there can be no conviction
without proof of identity of the criminal.·In this case, we find that
JCLV Realty was not deprived of due process. Notably, JCLV Realty
participated in the proceedings and presented evidence until the
prosecution rested its case. The prosecution likewise opposed the
demurrer. On this point, there is no denial of due process especially
when the parties are granted an opportunity to be heard, either
through verbal arguments or pleadings. Also, the RTC did not
commit grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the case on a
ground not raised in the demurrer to evidence, i.e., the prosecution
failed to positively identify the accused. It is settled that the
identity of the offender is indispensably entwined to the commission
of the crime.

456

456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

The first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to
establish the identity of the criminal, for even if the commission of
the crime can be proven, there can be no conviction without proof of
identity of the criminal. On the other hand, a demurrer to evidence
is defined as an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the
effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient
in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain
the issue. The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the
whole evidence to sustain a verdict. In granting the demurrer, the
RTC considered the entirety of the prosecution evidence but found
them insufficient to establish the identity of the accused.
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Double Jeopardy;
Elements of.·Double jeopardy has set in. It attaches when the
following elements concur: (1) the accused is charged under a
complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain
their conviction; (2) the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused has
been arraigned and has pleaded; and (4) the accused is convicted or
acquitted, or the case is dismissed without his/her consent. Here, all
the elements are present. A valid Information for the crime of
robbery was filed against Mangali before the RTC. Also, Mangali
had pleaded not guilty to the charge, and after the prosecution
rested, the criminal case was dismissed upon a demurrer to
evidence. Absent grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process,
the grant of demurrer to evidence is a judgment of acquittal which
is final and executory.

CAGUIOA, J., Concurring Opinion:

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeal from an Acquittal

or Case Dismissal; View that in criminal cases, the acquittal of the
accused or the dismissal of the case against him can only be
appealed by the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State. The
private complainant or the offended party may question such
acquittal or dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of the accused
is concerned.·In criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the
dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by the
Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State. The private
complainant or the offended party may question such acquittal or
dismissal only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is
concerned. The Court explained this in Bautista v. Cuneta-
Pangilinan, 684 SCRA 521

457

VOL. 947, AUGUST 27, 2020 457

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

(2012): The authority to represent the State in appeals of

criminal cases before the Supreme Court and the CA is
solely vested in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
Section 35(I), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987
Administrative Code explicitly provides that the OSG shall
represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and
instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation,
proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of
lawyers. It shall have specific powers and functions to represent the
Government and its officers in the Supreme Court and the CA, and
all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special
proceedings in which the government or any officer thereof in his
official capacity is a party. The OSG is the law office of the
Government. x x x x Thus, the Court has definitively ruled
that in a criminal case in which the offended party is the
State, the interest of the private complainant or the private
offended party is limited to the civil liability arising
therefrom. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court
or if there is an acquittal, an appeal of the criminal aspect
may be undertaken, whenever feasible, only by the State
through the Solicitor General. As a rule, only the Solicitor
General may represent the People of the Philippines on
appeal. The private offended party or complainant may not
undertake such appeal.The rationale behind this rule is that in
criminal cases, it is the State that is the offended party. It is the
party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action, and not the
private complainant. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense, the
complainantÊs role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution.
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Double Jeopardy;
View that double jeopardy provides three (3) related protections: (1)
against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2)
against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction,
and (3) against multiple punishments for the same offense.·The
right against double jeopardy is a constitutional right deeply rooted
in jurisprudence. The doctrine has several avowed purposes.
Primarily, it prevents the State from using its criminal processes as
an instrument of harassment to wear out the accused by a
multitude of cases with accumulated trials. It also serves the
additional purpose of precluding the State, following an acquittal,
from successively retrying the defendant in the hope of securing a
conviction. And finally, it prevents the State, following conviction,
from retrying the

458

458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

defendant again in the hope of securing a greater penalty.

Double jeopardy, therefore, provides three related protections: (1)
against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2)
against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction,
and (3) against multiple punishments for the same offense. The
constitutional mandate is a rule of finality. A single prosecution for
any offense is all the law allows. It protects an accused from
harassment, enables him to treat what had transpired as a closed
chapter in his life, either to exult in his freedom or to be resigned to
whatever penalty is imposed, and is a bar to unnecessary litigation,
in itself time-consuming and expense-producing for the State as
well. The ordeal of a criminal prosecution is inflicted only once, not
whenever it pleases the state to do so.
Same; Same; Same; View that the doctrine that Âdouble jeopardy
may not be invoked after trialÊ may apply only when the Supreme
Court (SC) finds that the Âcriminal trial was a shamÊ because the
prosecution representing the sovereign people in the criminal case
was denied due process.·In People v. Velasco, 340 SCRA 207 (2000),
the Court traced the development of the said right in common law
until it was introduced in the Philippines and took on a life of its
own in the context of our own legal tradition and historical
experience. In Velasco, the Supreme Court discussed the strictly
limited situation when double jeopardy does not apply: In general,
the rule is that a remand to a trial court of a judgment of
acquittal brought before the Supreme Court on certiorari
cannot be had unless there is a finding of mistrial, as in
Galman v. Sandiganbayan. Condemning the trial before the
Sandiganbayan of the murder of former Senator Benigno „Ninoy‰
Aquino, which resulted in the acquittal of all the accused, as a
sham, this Court minced no words in declaring that Â[i]t is settled
doctrine that double jeopardy cannot be invoked against
this CourtÊs setting aside of the trial courtÊs judgment of
acquittal where the prosecution which represents the
sovereign people in criminal cases is denied due process
x x x. [T]he sham trial was but a mock trial where the
authoritarian president ordered respondents
Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan to rig the trial, and closely
monitored the entire proceedings to assure the
predetermined final outcome of acquittal and absolution as
innocent of all the respondent-accused. x x x Manifestly, the
prosecution and the sovereign people were denied due
process of law

459

VOL. 947, AUGUST 27, 2020 459

 JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

with a partial court and biased Tanodbayan under the

constant and pervasive monitoring and pressure exerted by
the authoritarian president to assure the carrying out of his
instructions. A dictated, coerced and scripted verdict of
acquittal, such as that in the case at bar, is a void judgment.
In legal contemplation, it is no judgment at all. It neither
binds nor bars anyone. Such a judgment is Âa lawless thing
which can be treated as an outlaw.Ê It is a terrible and
unspeakable affront to the society and the people. ÂTo paraphrase
Brandeis: If the authoritarian head of government becomes the
lawbreaker, he breeds contempt for the law; he invites every man to
become a law unto himself; he invites anarchy.Ê The contention of
respondent-accused that the Sandiganbayan judgment of acquittal
ended the case and could not be appealed or reopened without being
put in double jeopardy was forcefully disposed of by the Court in
People v. Court of Appeals: x x x That is the general rule and
presupposes a valid judgment. As earlier pointed out, however,
respondent CourtÊs Resolution of acquittal was a void judgment for
having been issued without jurisdiction. No double jeopardy
attaches, therefore. A void judgment is, in legal effect, no
judgment at all. By it no rights are divested. Through it, no
rights can be attained. Being worthless, all proceedings
founded upon it are equally worthless. It neither binds nor
bars anyone. AII acts performed under it and all claims
flowing out of it are void.x x x x Private respondents invoke
Âjustice for the innocent.Ê For justice to prevail the scales must
balance. It is not to be dispensed for the accused alone. The
interests of the society which they have wronged, must also be
equally considered. A judgment of conviction is not necessarily a
denial of justice. A verdict of acquittal neither necessarily spells a
triumph of justice. To the party wronged, to the society offended, it
could also mean injustice. This is where the Courts play a vital role.
They render justice where justice is due. Thus, the doctrine that
Âdouble jeopardy may not be invoked after trialÊ may apply
only when the Court finds that the Âcriminal trial was a
shamÊ because the prosecution representing the sovereign
people in the criminal case was denied due process x x x.
x x x The fundamental philosophy highlighting the finality of
an acquittal by the trial court cuts deep into „the humanity
of the laws and in a jealous watchfulness over the rights of
the citizen, when brought in unequal contest with the
State.‰
 460

460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; View that

certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of
procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower
court.·Not every error in the trial or evaluation of the evidence by
the court in question that led to the acquittal of the accused would
be reviewable by certiorari. The writ of certiorari · being a remedy
narrow in scope and inflexible in character, whose purpose is to
keep an inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction, or to
prevent an inferior court from committing such grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction, or to relieve parties
from arbitrary acts of courts (i.e., acts that courts have no power or
authority in law to perform) · is not a general utility tool in the
legal workshop, and cannot be issued to correct every error
committed by a lower court. Certiorari will issue only to correct
errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the
findings or conclusions of the lower court. As long as a court acts
within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise
of its discretion will amount to nothing more than errors of
judgment which fall outside the scope of a writ of certiorari.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

LOPEZ, J.:

A private complainant cannot question the Order

granting the demurrer to evidence in a criminal case
absent grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process.
The interest of the offended party is limited only to the civil
aspect of the case. We apply this dictum in this Petition for
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
assailing the Court of AppealsÊ (CAsÊ) Decision1 dated
September 22, 2017 in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 152450.
_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 32-38; penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M.

Santos, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales
Sison and Socorro B. Inting.

461

VOL. 947, AUGUST 27, 2020 461

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

Antecedents

Phil Mangali (Mangali) and Jerry Alba (Alba) were

charged with robbery committed against JCLV Realty &
Development Corporation (JCLV Realty) before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) docketed as Criminal Case No.
Q-11-169004.2 Allegedly, Mangali and Alba removed JCLV
RealtyÊs electric facilities with intent to gain and
intimidation against persons. After the prosecution rested
its case, Mangali filed a demurrer to evidence claiming that
the prosecution failed to establish intent to gain and that
the metering instruments belonged to JCLV Realty.3 The
prosecution opposed the demurrer.
On March 30, 2017, the RTC granted the demurrer and
dismissed the criminal case for lack of evidence that
Mangali perpetrated the robbery,4 thus:

WHEREFORE, the Demurrer to Evidence is GRANTED.

The prosecutionÊs evidence is not sufficient to convict the
accused, accused (sic) Phil Mangali y GaliciaÊs case is
hereby DISMISSED.
No pronouncement as to the civil aspect of the case.
As regards accused Jerry P. Alba, his case is ORDERED
ARCHIVED and may be revived only upon his apprehension
and/or surrender.
SO ORDERED.5

Unsuccessful at a reconsideration,6 JCLV Realty

elevated the case to the CA through a special civil action for
certiorari
_______________

2 Id., at pp. 79-80.

3 Id., at pp. 172-179.
4 Id., at pp. 68-71; penned by Presiding Judge Eleuterio Larisma
Bathan.
5 Id., at p. 71.
6 Id., at p. 78.

462

462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

docketed as C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 152450. JCLV Realty argued

that the RTC erred in granting the demurrer because
Mangali had admitted the taking of meter facilities.
Moreover, the pre-trial order which contained admission on
the identity of the perpetrator is valid even if not signed by
the parties. Lastly, JCLV Realty claimed denial of due
process and grave abuse of discretion on the part of RTC
when it dismissed the criminal case on a ground not
invoked by the accused.7
On September 22, 2017, the CA dismissed the petition
and ruled that JCLV Realty has no personality to question
the dismissal of the criminal case. The authority to
represent the State in criminal proceedings is vested solely
on the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and not the
private complainant who may appeal only the civil aspect
of the case,8 viz.:

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is

DISMISSED for lack of personality or authority of the
petitioner to file the Petition with respect to the criminal
aspect of the case and for being the wrong judicial remedy
with respect to the civil aspect of the case.
SO ORDERED.9

JCLV Realty sought reconsideration10 but was

denied.11Hence, this recourse.12 JCLV Realty contends that
the authority of the OSG applies only in ordinary appeals.
The private complainant can file a special civil action for
certiorari to question the criminal and civil aspect of the
case. Yet, the CA mistook its petition as an ordinary appeal.
On the other hand, Mangali maintains that JCLV Realty
has no legal standing to file certiorari proceedings because
the reliefs sought directly

_______________

7 Id., at pp. 57-64.

8 Id., at pp. 32-38.
9 Id., at p. 38.
10 Id., at pp. 39-48.
11 Id., at p. 56.
12 Id., at pp. 12-27.

463

VOL. 947, AUGUST 27, 2020 463

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

affects the criminal aspect of the case. Hence, the OSGÊs

consent is necessary.

Ruling

In any criminal case or proceeding, only the OSG may

bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines, or represent the People or State before the
Supreme Court and the CA. This is explicitly provided
under Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book III of the
1987 Administrative Code of the Philippines,13 thus:

Section 35. Power and Functions.·The Office of the

Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the
Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its
officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding,
investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer.
When authorized by the President or head of the office
concerned, it shall also represent government-owned or
 -controlled corporations. The Office of the Solicitor General
shall constitute the law office of the Government and, as
such, shall discharge duties requiring the service of a lawyer.
It shall have the following specific power and functions:

(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court

and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings;
represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals
in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the
Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a
party. (Emphasis supplied)

The rationale behind this rule is that in a criminal case,

the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is
the State and not the private complainant. The interest of
the

_______________

13 See Cu v. Ventura, G.R. No. 224567, September 26, 2018, 881 SCRA
118.

464

464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

private offended party is restricted only to the civil liability.

In the prosecution of the offense, the complainantÊs role is
limited to that of a witness for the prosecution such that
when a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if
there is an acquittal, an appeal on the criminal aspect may
be undertaken only by the State through the OSG. The
private offended party may not take such appeal, but may
only do so as to the civil aspect of the case.14 Differently
stated, the private offended party may file an appeal
without the intervention of the OSG, but only insofar as
the civil liability of the accused is concerned. Also, the
complainant may file a special civil action for certiorari
even without the intervention of the OSG, but only to the
end of preserving his interest in the civil aspect of the
case.15
Corollarily, we dismissed petitions filed by the private
offended party questioning the acquittal of the accused or
dismissal of the criminal case without the consent of the
OSG. In Bangayan, Jr. v. Bangayan,16 the respondent lacks
personality to file a petition for certiorari before the CA
because she prayed for the reversal of the trial courtÊs order
granting the petitionersÊ demurrer to evidence and the
conduct of a full-blown trial. The respondent did not even
briefly discuss the civil liability of the petitioners, to wit:

A perusal of the petition for certiorari filed by Sally Go

before the CA discloses that she sought reconsideration of
the criminal aspect of the case. Specifically, she prayed
for the reversal of the trial courtÊs order granting
petitionersÊ demurrer to evidence and the conduct of a
full-blown trial of the criminal case. Nowhere in her
petition did she even briefly discuss the civil liability
of petitioners. It is apparent that

_______________
14 Chiok v. People, 774 Phil. 230, 264; 776 SCRA 120, 135 (2015).
15 Cu v. Ventura, supra note 13, citing Villareal v. Aliga, 724 Phil. 47,
57; 713 SCRA 52, 65 (2014); and Ong v. Genio, 623 Phil. 835; 609 SCRA
188 (2009).
16 675 Phil. 656; 659 SCRA 590 (2011).

465

VOL. 947, AUGUST 27, 2020 465

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

her only desire was to appeal the dismissal of the

criminal case against the petitioners. Because bigamy
is a criminal offense, only the OSG is authorized to
prosecute the case on appeal. Thus, Sally Go did not
have the requisite legal standing to appeal the
acquittal of the petitioners.
Sally Go was mistaken in her reading of the ruling in
 Merciales. First, in the said case, the OSG joined the cause of
the petitioner, thereby meeting the requirement that criminal
actions be prosecuted under the direction and control of the
public prosecutor. Second, the acquittal of the accused was
done without due process and was declared null and void
because of the nonfeasance on the part of the public
prosecutor and the trial court. There being no valid acquittal,
the accused therein could not invoke the protection of double
jeopardy.
In this case, however, neither the Solicitor General nor the
City Prosecutor of Caloocan City joined the cause of Sally Go,
much less consented to the filing of a petition for certiorari
with the appellate court. Furthermore, she cannot claim to
have been denied due process because the records show that
the trial court heard all the evidence against the accused and
that the prosecution had formally offered the evidence before
the court granted the demurrer to evidence. Thus, the
petitionersÊ acquittal was valid, entitling them to invoke their
right against double jeopardy.17 (Emphasis supplied; citation
omitted)

Likewise, in Jimenez v. Sorongon18 the petitioner has no

standing to question the dismissal of the criminal case
since his main argument is about the existence of probable
cause. This dispute involves the right to prosecute which
pertains exclusively to the People, as represented by the
OSG. A similar ruling was applied in Anlud Metal
Recycling Corp. v. Ang,19 to wit:

_______________

17 Id., at p. 665; pp. 598-599.

18 700 Phil. 316; 687 SCRA 151 (2012).
19 766 Phil. 676; 766 SCRA 633 (2015).

466

466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali
 The real party-in-interest in a criminal case is the People
of the Philippines. Hence, if the criminal case is dismissed by
the trial court, the criminal aspect of the case must be
instituted by the Solicitor General on behalf of the State.
As a qualification, however, this Court recognizes that the
private offended party has an interest in the civil aspect of
the case. Logically, the capability of the private
complainant to question the dismissal of the criminal
proceedings is limited only to questions relating to the
civil aspect of the case, It should ideally be along this
thin framework that we may entertain questions
regarding the dismissals of criminal cases instituted
by private offended parties. Enlarging this scope may
result in wanton disregard of the OSGÊs personality, as well
as the clogging of our dockets, which this Court is keen to
avoid.
Therefore, the litmus test in ascertaining the
personality of herein petitioner lies in whether or not
the substance of the certiorari action it instituted in
the CA referred to the civil aspect of the case.
Here in this Rule 45 petition, petitioner argues that the
RTC erred when it concluded that „there is no evidence of
conspiracy against private respondent Ang.‰ Petitioner goes
on to enumerate circumstances that collectively amount to a
finding that based on probable cause, respondent conspired
with the accused in defrauding Anlud Metal Recycling
Corporation.
Clearly, petitioner mainly disputes the RTCÊs finding
of want of probable cause to indict Ang as an accused
for estafa. This dispute refers, though, to the criminal,
and not the civil, aspect of the case. In Jimenez v.
Sorongon, We similarly ruled:

In this case, the petitioner has no legal personality

to assail the dismissal of the criminal case since the
main issue raised by the petitioner involved the
criminal aspect of the the existence of probable
cause. The petitioner did not appeal to pro-

467

VOL. 947, AUGUST 27, 2020 467

 JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

tect his alleged pecuniary interest as an offended

party of the crime, but to cause the reinstatement of
the criminal action against the respondents. This
involves the right to prosecute which pertains
exclusively to the People, as represented by the OSG.
(Emphasis supplied)

Given that nowhere in the pleadings, did petitioner

even briefly discuss the civil liability of respondent,
this Court holds that Anlud Metal Recycling
Corporation lacks the requisite legal standing to
appeal the discharge of respondent Ang from the
Information for estafa. On this ground alone, the petition
already fails.20(Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)

In Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc. v. Reyes,21 the

petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari before the
RTC seeking to annul the MTCÊs decision acquitting the
respondents. In that case, the petitioner has no authority
in filing the petition because if assails the admissibility of
evidence which only the State may question, viz.:

x x x [T]he Court has definitively ruled that in a criminal

case in which the offended party is the State, the interest of
the private complainant or the private offended party is
limited to the civil liability arising therefrom. If a criminal
case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal,
an appeal of the criminal aspect may be undertaken,
whenever legally feasible, only by the State through the
Solicitor General. As a rule, only the Solicitor General may
represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private
offended party or complainant may not undertake such
appeal.
In its petition for certiorari filed with the RTC,
petitioner seeks the annulment of the MTCÊs decision

_______________

20 Id., at pp. 686-688; pp. 641-643.

21 G.R. No. 236686, February 5, 2020, 931 SCRA 309.
 468

468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

acquitting herein respondents. In so doing, petitioner

raises issues on the admissibility of evidence which it
submitted to prove the guilt of the accused. These
issues necessarily require a review of the criminal
aspect of the case and, as such, is prohibited. As
discussed above, only the State, and not herein
petitioner, who is the private offended party, may
question the criminal aspect of the case.

The above cases raised issues that necessarily require a

review of the criminal aspect of the proceedings. In the
same manner, JCLV Realty are praying for reliefs which
pertain to the criminal aspect of the case. Foremost, the
arguments in the petition for certiorari are centered on
MangaliÊs identification as the perpetrator of the crime.
Secondly, JCLV Realty prayed that the March 30, 2017
Order be „annulled, reversed and set aside and that a new
one [will] be rendered denying the [accusedÊ] Demurrer to
Evidence.‰ Lastly, nowhere in the petition did JCLV Realty
discuss MangaliÊs civil liability. In contrast, it is ultimately
seeking the reinstatement of the criminal case against
Mangali.
Notably, this Court has already acknowledged that the
acquittal of the accused or dismissal of the criminal case
may be assailed through a Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the grounds of grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a
denial of due process rendering the judgment void.22 In
People v. Judge Santiago,23 the private offended party filed
a special civil action for certiorari on the ground that trial
court acquitted the accused without trial on the merits
despite the conflicting positions of the parties. This Court
ruled that the acquittal is a nullity for want of due process
because the trial court deprived the prosecution an
opportunity to present evidence.
_______________

22 People v. Go, 740 Phil. 583, 603; 732 SCRA 216, 239 (2014).
23 255 Phil. 851; 174 SCRA 143 (1989).

469

VOL. 947, AUGUST 27, 2020 469

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

Also, we declared that the victim can avail certiorari to

question the validity of acquittal.
In Dela Rosa v. CA,24 we sustained the private offended
partyÊs right to file a special civil action for certiorari in
assailing the dismissal of a criminal case and ruled that
the OSGÊs intervention is not necessary. In that case, the
trial courtÊs dismissal of the case on the ground that the
accused is entitled to a speedy trial is capricious and
unwarranted. In People v. Court of Appeals,25the victim
filed a petition for certiorari to assail the decision of the
appellate court acquitting the accused from the crime of
rape. This Court reversed the judgment of acquittal
because the appellate court merely relied on the evidence of
the defense and utterly disregarded that of the prosecution.
We likewise held that the victim has legal standing to bring
a special civil action for certiorari. In any event, the OSG
joined the victimÊs cause in its comment thereby fulfilling
the requirement that all criminal actions shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control of the public
prosecutor.
In Perez v. Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc.,26 the trial court
dismissed the criminal charge for estafa thru falsification of
commercial documents against the petitioner on the basis
solely of the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
We ruled that the trial court acted with grave abuse of
discretion because it did not make an independent
evaluation of the merits of the case. Hence, the private
respondent properly filed a petition for certiorari before the
appellate court to question the dismissal of the criminal
case. In David v. Marquez,27 the private offended party
brought a special civil action for certiorari to the CA and
questioned the patently erroneous order of the trial court
quashing the informations on the supposed ground of
improper venue. We held that the

_______________

24 323 Phil. 596; 253 SCRA 499 (1996).

25 755 Phil. 80; 751 SCRA 675 (2015).
26 384 Phil. 322; 327 SCRA 588 (2000).
27 810 Phil. 187; 825 SCRA 530 (2017).

470

470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

victim has the legal personality to file a petition for

certiorari on her own and not through the OSG.
In this case, we find that JCLV Realty was not deprived
of due process. Notably, JCLV Realty participated in the
proceedings and presented evidence until the prosecution
rested its case. The prosecution likewise opposed the
demurrer. On this point, there is no denial of due process
especially when the parties are granted an opportunity to
be heard, either through verbal arguments or pleadings.28
Also, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion
when it dismissed the case on a ground not raised in the
demurrer to evidence, i.e., the prosecution failed to
positively identify the accused. It is settled that the
identity of the offender is indispensably entwined to the
commission of the crime.29 The first duty of the prosecution
is not to prove the crime but to establish the identity of the
criminal, for even if the commission of the crime can be
proven, there can be no conviction without proof of identity
of the criminal.30 On the other hand, a demurrer to evidence
is defined as an objection by one of the parties in an action,
to the effect that the evidence which his adversary
produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not,
to make out a case or sustain the issue.31 The party
demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence
to sustain a verdict.32 In granting the demurrer, the RTC
considered the

_______________

28 People v. Atienza, 688 Phil. 122, 134; 673 SCRA 470, 482 (2012).
29 People v. Amarela, G.R. Nos. 225642-43, January 17, 2018, 852
SCRA 54; People v. Wagas, 717 Phil. 224; 705 SCRA 17 (2013); People v.
Espera, 718 Phil. 680, 694; 706 SCRA 704, 719 (2013).
30 People v. Caliso, 675 Phil. 742, 752; 659 SCRA 666, 675 (2011),
citing People v. Pineda, 473 Phil. 517; 429 SCRA 478 (2004); People v.
Esmale, 313 Phil. 471; 243 SCRA 578 (1995); Tuason v. Court of Appeals,
311 Phil. 813; 241 SCRA 695 (1995).
31 Gutib v. Court of Appeals, 371 Phil. 293, 300; 312 SCRA 365, 371
(1999).
32 Zaldivar v. People, 728 Phil. 113, 120; 785 SCRA 429, 436 (2016),
citing People v. Go, 740 Phil. 583; 732 SCRA 216 (2014).

471

VOL. 947, AUGUST 27, 2020 471

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

entirety of the prosecution evidence but found them

insufficient to establish the identity of the accused.
Finally, double jeopardy has set in. It attaches when the
following elements concur: (1) the accused is charged under
a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance
to sustain their conviction; (2) the court has jurisdiction; (3)
the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded; and (4)
the accused is convicted or acquitted, or the case is
dismissed without his/her consent.33 Here, all the elements
are present. A valid Information for the crime of robbery
was filed against Mangali before the RTC. Also, Mangali
had pleaded not guilty to the charge, and after the
prosecution rested, the criminal case was dismissed upon a
demurrer to evidence. Absent grave abuse of discretion or
denial of due process, the grant of demurrer to evidence is a
judgment of acquittal which is final and executory.34
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED. The
Court of AppealsÊ Decision dated September 22, 2017 in
C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 152450 is AFFIRMED.
 SO ORDERED.

Peralta (CJ., Chairperson), J. Reyes, Jr. and Lazaro-

Javier, JJ., concur.
Caguioa, J., Please see Concurring Opinion.

_______________

33 Merciales v. Court of Appeals, 429 Phil. 70, 81; 379 SCRA 345, 354-
355 (2002).
34 People v. Go, supra note 32 at p. 602; p. 230, citing People v.
Sandiganbayan (Third Division), 661 Phil. 350; 645 SCRA 726 (2011).

472

472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

CONCURRING OPINION

CAGUIOA, J.:

The respondent, Phil Mangali (Mangali), and Jerry Alba

(Alba), were charged with robbery committed against
petitioner, JCLV Realty & Development Corporation (JCLV
Realty). Mangali and Alba allegedly removed JCLV RealtyÊs
electric facilities with intent to gain and intimidation
against persons. After the prosecution rested its case,
Mangali filed a demurrer to evidence. The trial court
granted the demurrer and dismissed the criminal case
against Mangali on the ground of lack of evidence.
JCLV Realty elevated the case to the Court of Appeals
(CA) through a special civil action for certiorari,
challenging the grant of the demurrer by the trial court.
The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that JCLV Realty has
no personality to challenge the criminal aspect of the case
because the authority to represent the State in criminal
proceedings lies solely in the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), and that it availed the wrong judicial remedy to
question the civil aspect of the case. JCLV Realty sought
reconsideration but was denied.
 JCLV Realty is now before this Court via a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
questioning the CAÊs outright dismissal of its petition.
The ponencia affirms the ruling of the CA. The Rule 65
petition filed by JCLV Realty before the CA prays for reliefs
that pertain to the criminal aspect of the case, ultimately
seeking the reinstatement of the criminal case against
Mangali. JCLV Realty does not have the requisite legal
standing to do so as only the OSG may bring or defend
actions on behalf of the State before the CA and the
Supreme Court. The ponencia adds that the acquittal of an
accused or the dismissal of a criminal case can be done
through a Rule 65 petition on the grounds of abuse of
discretion amounting to lack

473

VOL. 947, AUGUST 27, 2020 473

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

or excess of jurisdiction, or a denial of due process

rendering the judgment void. In this case, the ponencia
finds that JCLV Realty was not denied due process since it
was able to participate in the proceedings and present
evidence. Finally, double jeopardy had set in as all the
elements of double jeopardy are present in this case. Thus,
there is no reason for the Court to reinstate the criminal
case against Mangali.1
I concur with the ponencia that the petition should be
denied. The acquittal by the trial court of Mangali for the
crime charged may not be assailed without violating his
constitutional right against double jeopardy. I submit this
separate concurring opinion only to emphasize (1) that
JCLV Realty had no legal personality to question MangaliÊs
acquittal before the CA, and 2) that the remedy of
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in judgments
of acquittal is a very very narrow exception which does not
arise in the present case.
First, only the OSG, in behalf of the State, and not the
private offended party, has the authority to question the
acquittal of an accused in a criminal case. Therefore, JCLV
Realty had no legal personality to file the petition for
certiorari with the CA.
In criminal cases, the acquittal of the accused or the
dismissal of the case against him can only be appealed by
the Solicitor General, acting on behalf of the State. The
private complainant or the offended party may question
such acquittal or dismissal only insofar as the civil liability
of the accused is concerned.2 The Court explained this in
Bautista v. Cuneta-Pangilinan:3

The authority to represent the State in appeals of

criminal cases before the Supreme Court and the

_______________
1 See ponencia, pp. 468-471.
2 Bautista v. Cuneta-Pangilinan, G R. No. 189754, October 24, 2012,
684 SCRA 521, 535.
3 Id.

474

474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

CA is solely vested in the Office of the Solicitor

General (OSG). Section 35(I), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV
of the 1987 Administrative Code explicitly provides that the
OSG shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its
agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in
any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring
the services of lawyers. It shall have specific powers and
functions to represent the Government and its officers in the
Supreme Court and the CA, and all other courts or tribunals
in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the
government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a
party. The OSG is the law office of the Government.
xxxx
Thus, the Court has definitively ruled that in a
criminal case in which the offended party is the State,
the interest of the private complainant or the private
offended party is limited to the civil liability arising
therefrom. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial
 court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal of the
criminal aspect may be undertaken, whenever feasible,
only by the State through the Solicitor General. As a
rule, only the Solicitor General may represent the
People of the Philippines on appeal. The private
offended party or complainant may not undertake
such appeal.4

The rationale behind this rule is that in criminal cases,

it is the State that is the offended party.5 It is the party
affected by the dismissal of the criminal action, and not the
private complainant.6 Thus, in the prosecution of the
offense, the

_______________

4 Id., at pp. 534-537.

5 Cu v. Ventura, G.R No. 224567, September 26, 2018, 881 SCRA 118,
128.
6 Chiok v. People, G.R. No. 179814, December 7, 2015, 776 SCRA 120,
135.

475

VOL. 947, AUGUST 27, 2020 475

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

complainantÊs role is limited to that of a witness for the

prosecution.7
Since the petition filed by JCLV Realty before the CA
essentially assailed the criminal aspect of the case, it
should have been filed by the State through the OSG. Thus,
the CA was correct when it dismissed the petition filed by
JCLV Realty for lack of legal personality.
Second, the remedy of a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 against the acquittal of an accused is a very limited
exception to the finality-of-acquittal rule, and one which
does not arise in the present case.
As early as 1915, the Court already recognized that a
dismissal of a criminal case for lack of evidence is
equivalent to an acquittal. In United States v. Kilayko,8 the
accused was charged with a violation of the penal
provisions of the Chattel Mortgage Law. After stipulating
on the facts of the case, counsel for the accused filed a
demurrer to the information · which was granted by the
trial court. The provincial fiscal appealed the case to the
Supreme Court. The Court upheld the acquittal of the
accused, despite the fact that the decision of the trial court
was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, thus:

In dismissing the complaint the trial judge refers to the

motion of counsel for the accused as a „so-called demurrer‰;
but it does not clearly appear whether he regarded the entry
of his order dismissing the complaint as a decision of the case
on the merits, or a ruling sustaining a demurrer.
We are of opinion, however, that the ruling of the
trial judge on the motion of counsel for the accused
was in truth and in effect a final judgment on the
merits from which no appeal lay on behalf

_______________
7 People v. Santiago, 255 Phil. 851, 861-862; 174 SCRA 143, 152
(1989).
8 32 Phil. 619 (1915).

476

476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

of the Government. The accused had been arraigned and

pleaded „not guilty,‰ and the judgment of the court was
entered upon an agreed statement of facts. The agreed
statement of facts disclosed everything which the prosecution
and the accused were prepared to prove by the testimony of
their respective witnesses. After the submission of the agreed
statement of facts, the trial was regularly terminated, and it
only remained for the trial judge to enter his judgment
convicting and sentencing the accused, or acquitting him and
dismissing the information upon which the proceedings had
been instituted. Manifestly, the accused was in jeopardy of
 conviction from the moment the case was submitted on the
agreed statement of facts until judgment was entered
dismissing the information. Indeed, there can be no doubt
that but for the erroneous view of the trial judge as to the
nature and effect of the penal provision of Section 12 of the
Chattel Mortgage Law, a judgment of conviction would have
been lawfully entered upon the agreed statement of facts,
followed by the imposition of the prescribed penalty.
The judgment entered in the court below was not a
mere order sustaining, a demurrer, but a final
judgment disposing of the case on the merits; so that
were we to reverse the judgment and direct the court
below to proceed with the trial, the accused would be
entitled to have the information dismissed on the plea
of double jeopardy.9

The right against double jeopardy is a constitutional

right deeply rooted in jurisprudence. The doctrine has
several avowed purposes. Primarily, it prevents the State
from using its criminal processes as an instrument of
harassment to wear out the accused by a multitude of cases
with accumulated trials. It also serves the additional
purpose of precluding the State, following an acquittal,
from successively retrying the defendant in the hope of
securing a conviction. And finally, it prevents the State,
following conviction, from retrying the

_______________

9 Id., at pp. 622-623. Emphasis and underscoring supplied.

477

VOL. 947, AUGUST 27, 2020 477

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

defendant again in the hope of securing a greater penalty.

Double jeopardy, therefore, provides three related
protections: (1) against a second prosecution for the same
offense after acquittal, (2) against a second prosecution for
the same offense after conviction, and (3) against multiple
punishments for the same offense.10
The constitutional mandate is a rule of finality. A single
prosecution for any offense is all the law allows. It protects
an accused from harassment, enables him to treat what
had transpired as a closed chapter in his life, either to exult
in his freedom or to be resigned to whatever penalty is
imposed, and is a bar to unnecessary litigation, in itself
time-consuming and expense-producing for the State as
well. The ordeal of a criminal prosecution is inflicted only
once, not whenever it pleases the state to do so.11
The inviolability of the right of the accused against
double jeopardy is reflected in the skeptical attitude taken
by the Supreme Court towards petitions for certiorari
disputing decisions acquitting an accused. In People v.
Velasco,12 the Court traced the development of the said
right in common law until it was introduced in the
Philippines and took on a life of its own in the context of
our own legal tradition and historical experience. In
Velasco, the Supreme Court discussed the strictly limited
situation when double jeopardy does not apply:

In general, the rule is that a remand to a trial court

of a judgment of acquittal brought before the Supreme
Court on certiorari cannot be had unless there is a
finding of mistrial, as in Galman v. Sandiganbayan.
Condemning the trial before the Sandiganbayan of the
murder of former Senator Benigno „Ninoy‰

_______________

10 People v. Dela Torre, G.R. Nos. 137953-58, April 11, 2002, 380 SCRA
596, 605.
11 Tan v. Barrios, G.R. Nos. 85481-82, October 18, 1990, 190 SCRA
686, 702-703.
12 G.R. No. 127444, September 13, 2000, 340 SCRA 207.

478

478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali
Aquino, which resulted in the acquittal of all the accused, as
a sham, this Court minced no words in declaring that Â[i]t is
settled doctrine that double jeopardy cannot be
invoked against this CourtÊs setting aside of the trial
courtÊs judgment of acquittal where the prosecution
which represents the sovereign people in criminal
cases is denied due process x x x. [T]he sham trial was
but a mock trial where the authoritarian president
ordered respondents Sandiganbavan and Tanodbavan
to rig the trial, and closely monitored the entire
proceedings to assure the predetermined final
outcome of acquittal and absolution as innocent of all
the respondent-accused. x x x Manifestly, the
prosecution and the sovereign people were denied due
process of law with a partial court and biased
Tanodbayan under the constant and pervasive
monitoring and pressure exerted by the authoritarian
president to assure the carrying out of his
instructions. A dictated, coerced and scripted verdict
of acquittal, such as that in the case at bar, is a void
judgment. In legal contemplation, it is no judgment at
all. It neither binds nor bars anyone. Such a judgment
is Âa lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw.Ê
It is a terrible and unspeakable affront to the society and the
people. ÂTo paraphrase Brandeis: If the authoritarian head of
government becomes the lawbreaker, he breeds contempt for
the law; he invites every man to become a law unto himself;
he invites anarchy.Ê The contention of respondent-accused
that the Sandiganbayan judgment of acquittal ended the case
and could not be appealed or reopened without being put in
double jeopardy was forcefully disposed of by the Court in
People v. Court of Appeals:

x x x That is the general rule and presupposes a

valid judgment. As earlier pointed out, however,
respondent CourtÊs Resolution of acquittal was a void
judgment for having been issued without jurisdiction.
No double jeopardy attaches, therefore. A void
judgment is, in legal effect, no judgment at all.

479

VOL. 947, AUGUST 27, 2020 479

 JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

By it no rights are divested. Through it, no rights

can be attained. Being worthless, all proceedings
founded upon it are equally worthless. It neither
binds nor bars anyone. All acts performed under
it and all claims flowing out of it are void.
xxxx
Private respondents invoke Âjustice for the innocent.Ê
For justice to prevail the scales must balance. It is not
to be dispensed for the accused alone. The interests of
the society which they have wronged, must also be
equally considered. A judgment of conviction is not
necessarily a denial of justice. A verdict of acquittal
neither necessarily spells a triumph of justice. To the
party wronged, to the society offended, it could also
mean injustice. This is where the Courts play a vital
role. They render justice where justice is due.

Thus, the doctrine that Âdouble jeopardy may not be

invoked after trialÊ may apply only when the Court
finds that the Âcriminal trial was a shamÊ because the
prosecution representing the sovereign people in the
criminal case was denied due process x x x.
x x x The fundamental philosophy highlighting the
finality of an acquittal by the trial court cuts deep into
„the humanity of the laws and in a jealous
watchfulness over the rights of the citizen, when
brought in unequal contest with the State.‰13

The case of Galman v. Sandiganbayan14 presents the

very limited and extremely narrow exception to the
application of the right against double jeopardy. The unique
facts surround-

_______________

13 Id., at pp. 238-240. Emphasis and underscoring supplied. Citations

omitted.
14 No. L-72670, September 12, 1986, 144 SCRA 43.
 480

480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

ing Galman · and other similar scenarios where the

denial of due process on the part of the prosecution was so
gross and palpable · is the very limited area where an
acquittal may be revisited through a petition for certiorari.
Thus, in People v. Tria-Tirona,15 the Court held:

x x x In general, the rule is that a remand to a trial

court of a judgment of acquittal brought before the
Supreme Court on certiorari cannot be had unless
there is a finding of mistrial, as in Galman v.
Sandiganbayan. Only when there is a finding of a sham
trial can the doctrine of double jeopardy be not invoked
because the people, as represented by the prosecution, were
denied due process.
From the foregoing pronouncements, 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.16

Further, in People v. Court of Appeals, Fourth Division,17

the Court explained that:

x x x [F]or an acquittal to be considered tainted with grave

abuse of discretion, there must be a showing that the
prosecutionÊs right to due process was violated or that
the trial conducted was a sham.

Although the dismissal order is not subject to

appeal, it is still reviewable but only through certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. For the writ to
issue, the trial court must be shown to have acted with
grave abuse

_______________
 15 G.R. No. 130106, July 15, 2005, 463 SCRA 462.
16 Id., at p. 469. Emphasis supplied.
17 G.R. No. 198589, July 25, 2012, 677 SCRA 575.

481

VOL. 947, AUGUST 27, 2020 481

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

such as where the prosecution was denied the
opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a
sham thus rendering the assailed judgment void. The
burden is on the petitioner to clearly demonstrate that
the trial court blatantly abused its authority to a point
so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense
justice. (Citations omitted)

The petition is bereft of any allegation, much less, evidence

that the prosecutionÊs right to due process was violated or
the proceedings before the CA were a mockery such
that AndoÊs acquittal was a foregone conclusion.
Accordingly, notwithstanding the alleged errors in the
interpretation of the applicable law or appreciation of
evidence that the CA may have committed in ordering
AndoÊs acquittal, absent any showing that the CA acted
with caprice or without regard to the rudiments of due
process, the CAÊs findings can no longer be reversed,
disturbed and set aside without violating the rule
against double jeopardy.18

Hence, not every error in the trial or evaluation of the

evidence by the court in question that led to the acquittal of
the accused would be reviewable by certiorari. The writ of
certiorari · being a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible
in character, whose purpose is to keep an inferior court
within the bounds of its jurisdiction, or to prevent an
inferior court from committing such grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction, or to relieve
parties from arbitrary acts of courts (i.e., acts that courts
have no power or authority in law to perform) · is not a
general utility tool in the legal workshop, and cannot be
issued to correct every error committed by a lower court.19
Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction,
not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings

_______________

18 Id., at pp. 579-580. Emphasis and underscoring supplied.

19 Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No.
153852, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 410, 420.

482

482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

or conclusions of the lower court. As long as a court acts

within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the
exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than
errors of judgment which fall outside the scope of a writ of
certiorari.
In the case at bar, although JCLV Realty filed a petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
before this Court, the ponencia nonetheless made a finding
that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of
discretion when it granted the demurrer to evidence on a
ground not raised therein · that of the failure of the
prosecution to positively identify Mangali. As discussed, it
is immaterial whether the trial court was correct in
acquitting Mangali. The fact remains that MangaliÊs right
against double jeopardy already attached when the trial
court granted his demurrer to evidence and ordered his
acquittal. No amount of error of judgment will ripen
into an error of jurisdiction such that the acquittal
would be reviewable by this Court through a
petition for certiorari. Absent any manifest denial of due
process tantamount to making the proceedings before the
court a quo a sham trial, there is no basis whatsoever to
reinstate the criminal case against Mangali and place him
twice in jeopardy.
 In light of the foregoing considerations, I vote to DENY
the petition.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

VOL. 947, AUGUST 27, 2020 483

JCLV Realty ###amp### Development Corporation vs.
Mangali

Generally, a judgment of acquittal is immediately final

and executory. The prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal
lest the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy
be violated. However, the rule admits of two (2) exceptional
grounds that can be challenged in a certiorari proceeding
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court: (1) in a judgment of
acquittal rendered with grave abuse of discretion by the
court; and (2) where the prosecution had been deprived of
due process. (People vs. Sandiganbayan [Fourth Division],
860 SCRA101 [2018])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2024 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.