Republic of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS Manila PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES as represented by Solicitor General Petitioner C.A. G.R. No. For: Writ of Certiorari -VersusJudge Jane Doe, Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court Puerto Princesa City Branch 50 Respondent John Doe, Accused Private Respondent x------------------------x PETITION FOR CERTIORARI The petitioner, the people of the Philippines, duly represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states: Nature and Basis of the Petition This is a petition for certiorari under the Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner invokes the Honorable Court’s exercise of its sacred obligation to determine whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction of the respondent court. The petition is filed as there is no remedy of appeal and neither is there, available to the petitioner, any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy, in the ordinary course of law. -1-|Petition for Certiorari The Parties 1. Private respondent is of legal age and resident of Andre Pascual Rd, Brgy. San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City, Philippines, where he may be served with legal processes. 2. Public Respondent is of legal age and is the presiding judge of Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa Branch 50, where he may be served with legal processes. He is being made respondent herein in his capacity as presiding judge of the said Regional Trial Court. 3. Petitioner herein is the People of the Philippines as represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, with the address of 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City, where may be served with legal processes. Petition Petitioner, respectfully alleges that: 1. On March 05, 2022, in the said Regional Trial Court, the petitioner filed an information for violation of RA 9165, docketed as Criminal Case No 1., wherein the petitioner herein was the complainant and the respondent John Doe was the accused. (Certified True Copy of Information is attached hereto as “Annex B”.) 2. On March 20, 2022, the private respondent filed to the respondent court a demurrer to evidence (Certified True Copy of Demurrer to Evidence is attached hereto as “Annex C”.), to which the respondent court on its promulgated order on March 27, 2022 granted the demurrer to evidence thereby acquitting the private respondent to the Criminal Case No. 1. (Certified True Copy of order is attached hereto as “Annex A”.) 3. The respondent Judge, despite the amount and sufficiency of evidence presented by the petitioner pointing to the guilt of the private respondent granted the demurrer to evidence arbitrarily without sufficient explanation and justifiable reason thereby committing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 4. The assailed order granting the demurrer to evidence was received by the petitioner on March 29, 2022, and five (5) days thereafter or on April 03, 2022 this petition for certiorari is timely filed within the prescribed period of the Rules of Court. -2-|Petition for Certiorari 5. There is no remedy of appeal and neither is there, available to the petitioner, any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy, in the ordinary course of law. Arguments In support of the foregoing allegations, the petitioner submits the following: An order granting the demurrer to evidence and judgement of acquittal may be assailed by the People in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court without placing the accused in double jeopardy. However, in such a case, the People is burdened to establish that the court a qou, acted without jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion generally refers to capricious or whimsical exercise of judgement as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty imposed by law, or to act in contemplation of law or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. (Yu v. Judge Reyes, G.R. No. 189207. June 15, 2011) The Honorable Regional Trial Court Judge was in error in issuing the assailed order, “Annex A”, granting the demurrer on evidence despite the presence of the sufficient relevant and competent object, documentary, and testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution to convict the private respondent beyond reasonable doubt of violation of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The petitioner, in proving the guilt of the private respondent and therein accused, has provided the corpus delicti of the violation which is the seized illegal drugs and has proven the regularity of the conduct of the preservation of the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti as to be within the procedure prescribe by law in seizure of illegal drugs; the testimony of the seizing officers, barangay officials, the member of the press, the forensic chemist, the delivery truck driver, and other witnesses relevant to the case; all these evidence are sufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused and establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (Certified True Copy of the Affidavits of the Witnesses are attached hereto as Annexes D to M) -3-|Petition for Certiorari In the assailed order, “Annex A”, the respondent has not provided any explanation whatsoever for the granting of the demurrer and the insufficiency of the evidence presented by the prosecution in establishing the guilt of the private respondent. As provided in the case of Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust company there is abuse of discretion if the judicial power was exercised in arbitrary manner that the judge evaded a positive duty or virtually refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law. Clearly the respondent Judge, acted arbitrarily and in grave abuse of discretion that amounts to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting arbitrarily the assailed order without providing any concrete explanation or sufficient ground to justify such order. WHEREFORE, premised on the foregoing consideration and in the interest of justice, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the aforesaid petition for certiorari be granted and the Order, “ Annex A” rendered by the respondent declared as null and void and the Private Respondent be adjudged guilty of violation of RA9165. Other relief the Court may consider just and equitable are also prayed for. April 02, 2022. Makati City. (signed) John Gardiola Solicitor General -4-|Petition for Certiorari VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION FOR NON-FORUM SHOPPING I, Solicitor General John Gardiola, married, of legal age, and with office address at 123 Amorsolo St. Legaspi Village, Makati City hereby depose and state that: 1. I am the petitioner in the above-captioned Petition for Certiorari; 2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition for Certiorari and that I have read and understood the contents thereof; 3. The allegations contained therein are true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records of this case; 4. I hereby certify that I have not filed or caused to be filed any other case or proceeding involving the same issues or subject matter in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other Court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and to the best of my knowledge, no such action or claim is pending therein; 5. Should hereafter I learn that there is a similar pending before any such Courts, tribunal or agency, I undertake to report such fact to this agency within five (5) days from such knowledge. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affixed my signature on 02 April 2022 at the City of Makati. (signed) John Gardiola Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 2nd day of April 2022 at the City of Makati, affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License No. 99999999 as competent evidence of affiant’s identity. Doc. No. _____; Page No. _____; Book No. _____; Series of 2022. -5-|Petition for Certiorari AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, Liana Orayle, Filipino, of legal age, single and with office address at 123 Amorsolo St. Legaspi Village, Makati City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state the following: I am the liaison officer of the office of the Solicitor General, the representative of the Petitioner in the above-entitled Petition for Certiorari; On April 01, 2022, I served the following pleading/paper: PETITION FOR CERTIORARI in PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JUDGE JANE DOE PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC BRANCH 51 OF PUERTO PRINCESA CITY AND JOHN DOE pursuant to Sections 3, 5, and 13 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court by personal service to the following: Judge Jane Doe Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 51 of Puerto Princesa City Hall of Justice Puerto Princesa City John Doe Adres Pascual Road, Brgy. San Pedro Puerto Princesa City I am executing this affidavit in order to attest to the truth of all the foregoing. City of Makati, April 02, 2022. Liana Orayle Affiant -6-|Petition for Certiorari SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2nd day of April 2022 affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License No. 888888 as competent evidence of affiant’s identity. Doc. No.:____; Page No.____; Book No.____; Series of 2022. -7-|Petition for Certiorari