Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

as represented by Solicitor General C.A. G.R. No.
Petitioner For: Writ of Certiorari

-Versus-

Judge 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