5/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tria-Tirona

*
G.R. No. 130106. July 15, 2005.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON.

PERLITA J. TRIA-TIRONA, in her capacity as Presiding
Judge, Branch 102, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City and
CHIEF INSPECTOR RENATO A. MUYOT, respondents.

Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Double Jeopardy; 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.—To settle
the issue of whether or not an acquittal can still be appealed, this
Court pronounced in People v. Velasco that as mandated by the
Constitution, statutes and jurisprudence, an acquittal is final and
unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy, whether it
happens at the trial court level or before the Court of Appeals. In
general, the rule is that a remand to a trial court of a judgment of
acquittal brought before the Supreme

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

463

VOL. 463, JULY 15, 2005 463

People vs. Tria-Tirona

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
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017947b13ae9980c85d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
5/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

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.
Same; Same; Same; The fact that the petition was given due
course does not necessarily mean the Court will have to look into
the sufficiency of the evidence since the issue to be resolved is the
appeal-ability of an acquittal.—We find petitioner’s argument
that, despite our ruling in People v. Velasco, since we gave due
course to the petition, the issue on the sufficiency of the evidence
may be reviewed, to be untenable. The fact that the petition was
given due course does not necessarily mean we have to look into
the sufficiency of the evidence since the issue to be resolved is the
appealability of an acquittal. We have categorically ruled in
People v. Velasco that, except when there is a finding of mistrial,
no appeal will lie in case of an acquittal. There being no mistrial
in the case before us, we find no need to reexamine the evidence,
because if we do so, we will be allowing an appeal to be made on
an acquittal which would clearly be in violation of the accused’s
right against double jeopardy.
Remedial Law; Certiorari; Certiorari will not be issued to cure
errors by the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the
parties and its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its
conclusions of law.—The petition smacks in the heart of the lower
court’s appreciation of the evidence of the parties. It is apparent
from the decision of public respondent that she considered all the
evidence adduced by the parties. Even assuming arguendo that
public respondent may have improperly assessed the evidence on
hand, what is certain is that the decision was arrived at only after
all the evidence was considered, weighed and passed upon. In
such a case, any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is
merely an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by
certiorari. An error of judgment is one in which the court may
commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction
is one where the act complained of was issued by the court
without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with

464

464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tria-Tirona

grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess

of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017947b13ae9980c85d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
5/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to

cure errors by the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of
the parties, and its conclusions anchored on the said findings and
its conclusions of law. Since no error of jurisdiction can be
attributed to public respondent in her assessment of the evidence,
certiorari will not lie.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. 102.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for People.
     Augusto Jimenez for respondent.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Can the government appeal from a judgment acquitting the

accused after trial on the merits without violating the
constitutional precept against double jeopardy?
Before us is a petition for 1review on certiorari seeking
the annulment of the decision of respondent Judge Perlita
J. Tria-Tirona dated 11 August 1997 acquitting accused-
private respondent Chief Inspector Renato A. Muyot and in
lieu thereof a judgment be issued convicting the latter of
the crime charged. 2
Armed with two search warrants, members of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Anti-Organized
Crime Division, together with members of the NBI Special
Investigation Division and the Presidential Intelligence
and Counter-Intelligence Task Force Hammer Head
serving as security,

_______________

1 Records, pp. 254-280.

2 Search Warrants Nos. 96-743 and 96-744 for violation of Republic Act
No. 6425, as amended, and for violation of P.D. 1866, as amended,
respectively, issued by Hon. William M. Bayhon, Presiding Judge of
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 23.

465

VOL. 463, JULY 15, 2005 465

People vs. Tria-Tirona

conducted a search on the house of accused-private

respondent located on Banawe, Quezon City. The alleged
finding of 498.1094 grams of methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu) thereat led to the filing of an
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017947b13ae9980c85d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
5/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

information charging private respondent with Violation

3
of
Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No.4 6425, as
amended by Rep. Act No. 7659. The information reads:

“That on or about October 15, 1996 in Quezon City and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above–named accused did
then and there knowingly have in his possession, custody and
control Four Hundred Ninety-Eight point One Thousand Ninety-
Four (498.1094) grams of methamphetamine hydroc(h)loride
(shabu) a regulated drug without any license, permit, prescription
or authority coming from any government office, bureau, agency,
or department authorized to issue such license, permit,
prescription or authority in blatant violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972 as amended by RA 7659.”

The case was raffled to the sala of public respondent—

Branch 102 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
When arraigned on 27 November 1996, private
respondent, assisted by a counsel
5
de parte, pleaded not
guilty to the crime charged. After trial
6
on the merits,
public respondent rendered a decision acquitting private
respondent on ground of reasonable doubt.
The decision, more particularly the acquittal of private
respondent, is being assailed via a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner contends
that public respondent, in acquitting private respondent,
committed grave abuse of discretion by ignoring material
facts and evidence on record which, when considered,
would lead to the inevitable conclusion of the latter’s guilt
beyond reasonable

_______________

3 The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

4 Records, p. 2.
5 Id., at p. 84.
6 Id., at pp. 254-280.

466

466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tria-Tirona

doubt. It added that the appealability of the trial court’s

decision of acquittal in the context of the constitutional
guarantee against double jeopardy
7
should be resolved since
it has two pending petitions before the court raising the
same question.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017947b13ae9980c85d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
5/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

Petitioner informs8
the Court that in its prior petition in
People v. Velasco, it has presented and extensively
discussed the now settled constitutional doctrine in the
United States that the Double Jeopardy Clause does permit
a review of acquittals decreed by trial magistrates where,
as in this case, no retrial will be required even if the
judgment should be overturned. It thus argues that
appealing the acquittal of private respondent would not be
violative of the constitutional right of the accused against
double jeopardy.
In a resolution dated 12 November 1997, the Court
required private respondent9 to comment on the petition
within ten days from 10
notice. On 8 January 1998, the latter
filed his Comment.
On 26 January
11
1998, the Court required
12
petitioner to
file its reply. It did on 13 November 1998.
On 13 September 2000, the 13Court promulgated its
decision in People v. Velasco. In said case, the
government, by way of a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court, appealed the decision of Hon.
Tirso D.C. Velasco acquitting accused Honorato Galvez of
the charges of murder and double frustrated murder due to
insufficiency of evidence, and of the charge of unauthorized
carrying of firearm on the ground that

_______________

7 People v. Velasco, G.R No. 127444, 13 September 2000, 340 SCRA 207
and People v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 128587 (pending resolution with this
Court).
8 Ibid.
9 Rollo, p. 75.
10 Id., at pp. 78-81.
11 Id., at p. 92.
12 Id., at pp. 113-131.
13 Supra, note 7, at pp. 238-245.

467

VOL. 463, JULY 15, 2005 467

People vs. Tria-Tirona

the act charged was not a violation of law. This Court

dismissed the petition. We ruled:

. . . Therefore, as mandated by our Constitution, statutes and

cognate jurisprudence, an acquittal is final and unappealable on

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017947b13ae9980c85d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
5/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

the ground of double jeopardy, whether it happens at the trial

court level or before the Court of Appeals.
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. . . .
...
Thus, the doctrine that “double jeopardy may not be invoked
after trial” may apply only when the Court finds that the
“criminal trial was a sham” because the prosecution representing
the sovereign people in the criminal case was denied due process.
...
. . . Thus, “emerging American consensus on jury acquittals”
notwithstanding, on solid constitutional bedrock is well engraved
our own doctrine that acquittals by judges on evidentiary
considerations cannot be appealed by government. The
jurisprudential metes and bounds of double jeopardy having been
clearly defined by both constitution and statute, the issue of the
effect of an appeal of a verdict of acquittal upon a determination
of the evidence on the constitutionally guaranteed right of an
accused against being twice placed in jeopardy should now be
finally put to rest.
...
Philippine jurisprudence has been consistent in its application
of the Double Jeopardy Clause such that it has viewed with
suspicion, and not without good reason, applications for the
extraordinary writ questioning decisions acquitting an accused on
ground of grave abuse of discretion.
The petition at hand which seeks to nullify the decision of
respondent judge acquitting the accused . . . goes deeply into the
trial court’s appreciation and evaluation in esse of the evidence
adduced by the parties. A reading of the questioned decision
shows that respondent judge considered the evidence received at
trial . . . While the appreciation thereof may have resulted in
possible lapses in evidence evaluation, it nevertheless does not
detract from the fact

468

468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tria-Tirona

that the evidence was considered and passed upon. This

consequently exempts the act from the writ’s limiting
requirement of excess or lack of jurisdiction. As such, it becomes
an improper object of and therefore non-reviewable by certiorari.
To reiterate, errors of judgment are not to be confused with errors
in the exercise of jurisdiction.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017947b13ae9980c85d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
5/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

On 10 November 2004, the Court gave due course to the

petition and 14required the parties to submit their respective
memoranda.
Private respondent
15
Muyot filed his memorandum on 4
March 2005. Invoking the Rule of Double Jeopardy, he
prays that the petition be dismissed.
On 20 April 2005, petitioner filed its memorandum. It
raised the following issues:

WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION OF RESPONDENT

COURT ACQUITTING PRIVATE RESPONDENT CAN BE
REVIEWED ON A PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI.

II

WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE

CONVICTED FOR VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS DRUG
ACT OF 1972 ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION.

On the first issue, petitioner argues

16
that notwithstanding
our decision in People v. Velasco, the fact that we gave due
course to the petition means that the issue on the
sufficiency of the evidence in this case may be reviewed. It
added that a petition for certiorari should be an available
remedy to question the acquittal of the accused.

_______________

14 Rollo, p. 135.
15 Id., at pp. 154-167.
16 Supra, note 7.

469

VOL. 463, JULY 15, 2005 469

People vs. Tria-Tirona

On the second issue, petitioner maintains that respondent

court abused its discretion in disregarding the testimonies
of the NBI agents on the discovery of the dangerous drug
despite the absence of any evidence to show that they were
impelled by any improper motive.
To settle the issue of whether or not an acquittal can
still be17 appealed, this Court pronounced in People v.
Velasco that as mandated by the Constitution, statutes
and jurisprudence, an acquittal is final and unappealable
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017947b13ae9980c85d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
5/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

on the ground of double jeopardy, whether it happens at

the trial court level or before the Court of Appeals. 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 18a 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.
We find petitioner’s
19
argument that, despite our ruling in
People v. Velasco, since we gave due course to the petition,
the issue on the sufficiency of the evidence may be
reviewed, to be untenable. The fact that the petition was
given due course does not necessarily mean we have to look
into the sufficiency of the evidence since the issue to be
resolved is the appealability of an acquittal.
20
We have
categorically ruled in People v. Velasco that, except when
there is a finding of mis-

_______________

17 Ibid.
18 G.R. No. L-72670, 12 September 1986, 144 SCRA 43.
19 Supra, note 7.
20 Ibid.

470

470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tria-Tirona

trial, no appeal will lie in case of an acquittal. There being

no mistrial in the case before us, we find no need to
reexamine the evidence, because if we do so, we will be
allowing an appeal to be made on an acquittal which would
clearly be in violation of the accused’s right against double
jeopardy.
Petitioner, via a petition for review on certiorari, prays
for the nullification and the setting aside of the decision of
public respondent acquitting private respondent claiming
that the former abused her discretion in disregarding the
testimonies of the NBI agents on the discovery of the illegal
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017947b13ae9980c85d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
5/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

drugs. The petition smacks in the heart of the lower court’s

appreciation of the evidence of the parties. It is apparent
from the decision of public respondent that she considered
all the evidence adduced by the parties. Even assuming
arguendo that public respondent may have improperly
assessed the evidence on hand, what is certain is that the
decision was arrived at only after all the evidence was
considered, weighed and passed upon. In such a case, any
error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an
error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari. An
error of judgment is one in which21
the court may commit in
the exercise of its jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is
one where the act complained of was issued by the court
without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction and which error is 22correctible only by the
extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be
issued to cure errors by the trial court in its appreciation of
the evidence of the parties, and its conclusions
23
anchored on
the said findings and its conclusions of law. Since no error
of jurisdiction can be attributed to public respondent in her
assessment of the evidence, certiorari will not lie.

_______________

21 Toh v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140274, 15 November 2000, 344

SCRA 831, 837.
22 Ibid.
23 People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144332, 10 June 2004, 431 SCRA
610.

471

VOL. 463, JULY 15, 2005 471

Sanchez vs. Quinio

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby

DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

          Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr.

and Tinga, JJ., concur.

Petition dismissed.

Note.—The doctrine that “double jeopardy may not be

invoked after trial” may apply only when the Court finds
that the “criminal trial was a sham” because the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017947b13ae9980c85d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
5/8/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

prosecution representing the sovereign people in the

criminal case was denied due process. (People vs. Velasco,
340 SCRA 207 [2000])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017947b13ae9980c85d0003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10