THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 249002, August 04, 2021 ]
PSI DINO WALLY COGASI, SPO2 JERRY SILAWON, SPO1 REYNALDO BADUA, AND PO2 GEOFFREY BANTULE, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SONNY RUFINO, JULIET ARCITA, JAY ARCITA, AND CARLOS TICAWA, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
CARANDANG, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision2 dated February 28, 2019 and Resolution3 dated August 13, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 157140 which annulled and set aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 62, and instead pronounced petitioners Police Senior Inspector Dino Wally Cogasi (P/SInsp. Cogasi), SPO2 Jerry Silawon (SPO2 Silawon), SPO1 Reynaldo Badua (SPO1 Badua), PO2 Geoffrey Bantule (PO2 Bantule), and PO1 Ramon Christopher Bueno (PO1 Bueno) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of grave threats.
Facts of the Case
On November 29, 2012, the Associate Provincial Prosecutor of Benguet filed an Information accusing petitioners of the crime of grave threats committed as follows:
That on or about the 16th day of July 2012, at Km. 8, Poblacion, Municipality of Tuba, Province of Benguet, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously threaten JULIET T. ARCITA, JAY T. ARCITA, SONNY RUFINO, MENCIO AMITEN and CARLOS A. TICAWA, by pointing their service firearms to the latter and one of them uttering the words, "APAY KAYAT YO NGA AGAYOS TI DARA DITOY", meaning in English "WHY, YOU WANT THAT BLOOD WILL FLOW IN THIS PLACE", which threat however is not subject of any condition, to the damage and prejudice of JULIET T. ARCITA, JAY T. ARCITA, SONNY RUFINO, MENCIO AMITEN and CARLOS A. TICAWA.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4 (Emphasis in the original)
Before the arraignment of petitioners, they filed a motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. However, the trial court denied the motion.1aшphi1 Hence, on February 21, 2013, petitioners were arraigned, and they all pleaded not guilty to the charge of grave threats. After the termination of the preliminary conference, trial ensued.5
The version of the prosecution are as follows:
On July 16, 2012, private respondents Jay T. Arcita (Jay), Sonny Rufino (Sonny), Mencio Amiten (Mencio), and Carlos A. Ticawa (Carlos), together with Jim Arcita (Jim) and Ramon Bulakit, Jr. (Ramon) were gathered at the house of Juliet T. Arcita (Juliet), waiting for their 2:00 p.m meeting at the Tuba Municipal Police Station, to settle the case of robbery with violence filed by Sonny against Nobren Nagen (Nobren), Ian Gabriel, and Oliver Gabriel. However, Juliet received a text message from the sister of Nobren requesting the meeting to push through at 3:00 p.m. instead.6
Hence, at about 2:00 p.m, while private respondents are seated in front of the house of Juliet, five men in civilian clothing approached them and asked who among them is Sonny. Sonny identified himself. Thereafter, the group announced that they are arresting Sonny for selling illegal drugs that same morning of July 16, 2012. When asked, the five men were not able to produce their identification and warrant of arrest. The five men merely introduced themselves as policemen from Station 10 and from the National Bureau of Investigation. Because of this, private respondents blocked the five men from arresting Sonny. When the five men could not get hold of Sonny, they drew their pistols. Two of them fired their firearms in the air before pointing the same to private respondents while saying, "apay kayat yu nga agayos ti dara dituy?" (Why, do you want that blood will flow here?). Because it was then a holiday, the neighbors of private respondents came out of their houses to see what the commotion was all about. Seeing that more people are gathered, the five men picked up the empty shells of bullets they fired and left the place.7
Immediately after the shots were fired, Mencio ran to the nearest police outpost to call for assistance from SPO2 Rufino Dagdagan (SPO2 Dagdagan). Together, they went immediately to the house of Juliet, but they were not able to see the five men who had already left. Private respondents, accompanied by SPO2 Dagdagan, proceeded to the Tuba Municipal Police Station and to Police Station 10 in Baguio City to report the incident. The following day, private respondents found an empty shell of a caliber 9mm firearm and a bunch of car keys in the vicinity where the commotion happened.8
On the other hand, petitioners aver that they are members of the City Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (CAID-SOTG). On July 16, 2012, at about 11:00 o'clock in the morning, a confidential informant came to inform petitioners of the illegal drug activities of a certain Sonny Rufino within the vicinity of Green Valley, Baguio City. Upon validation of the information, petitioners found that Sonny is number 17 in the target watch list of drug personalities. Hence, P/SInsp. Cogasi organized his team and instructed them to prepare the necessary documents for the conduct of a buy bust operation and to coordinate with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). P/SInsp. Cogasi's team is composed of SPO1 Badua as poseur buyer; SPO2 Silawon, PO2 Bantule, and PO1 Bueno as arresting and back-up officers; and SPO1 Jouie Galao as the mobile driver.9
Thereafter, petitioners proceeded to Green Valley Junction, Baguio City for the buy-bust operation. P/SInsp. Cogasi's team earlier coordinated with the Station Commander of Station 10 to inform the latter of the operation within their area of responsibility. At about 2:30 in the afternoon, the team saw a blue tamaraw FX with plate number TSX 254 arrive and stop beside the informant and poseur buyer SPO1 Badua. A male person, later identified as Sonny, who was seated at the passenger side, partially opened the window of the car and waved to the informant and SPO1 Badua. The informant told Sonny that SPO1 Badua wanted to buy shabu. SPO1 Badua handed to Sonny the marked money while Sonny gave to SPO1 Badua one piece of small heat sealed transparent sachet. Upon consummation of the sale, SPO1 Badua held the shoulder of Sonny and identified himself as a police officer. However, the driver of the car sped away before SPO1 Badua can arrest Sonny. P/SInsp. Cogasi's team chased Sonny's car. However, the car suddenly stopped in a residential house along the road. P/SInsp. Cogasi's team alighted from their car. Sonny also alighted from the blue tamaraw FX. Suddenly, four other people carrying pieces of wood attacked them. Despite informing Sonny's companions and their neighbors that petitioners are police officers, the group of Sonny attacked them and violently resisted arrest. Since they are outnumbered and to prevent further untoward incident, petitioners retreated. Petitioners instead decided to file the necessary charges against Sonny and his group. Petitioners filed cases for violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002" and direct assault against private respondents.10
On July 31, 2012, private respondents were arrested by virtue of warrants of arrest issued against them in relation to the charges for violation of R.A. No. 9165 and direct assault. According to petitioners, private respondents retaliated by filing criminal and administrative cases against them, including this case for grave threats.11
Ruling of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
On April 30, 2014, the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Tuba-Sablan, Benguet convicted petitioners for the crime of grave threats and imposed upon them the penalty of two months imprisonment and ordered them to pay a fine of P500.00 each.12
According to the MCTC, all the elements of the crime of grave threats are present in this case. The MCTC is more convinced of the version of the facts by the prosecution than the defense proffered by petitioners that a buy-bust operation was effected against Sonny. The MCTC held that the act of petitioners in firing their pistols in the air and uttering, "apay kayat yo agayos ti dara ditoy?" is a threat to inflict a wrong against another. This wrong constitutes the crime of murder, which in turn are the elements of grave threats.13
Aggrieved, petitioners moved for reconsideration. However, the MCTC denied their motion. Hence, petitioners filed an appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 62.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On August 11, 2017, the RTC rendered its Decision14 dismissing the appeal for lack of merit. The RTC concurred with the factual findings of the MCTC. The RTC held that petitioners' act of firing their guns in the air and shouting, "apay kayat yun nga agayos ti dara ditoy" constitutes grave threats.15
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. On March 12, 2018, the RTC issued an Order16 setting aside its earlier decision. The RTC reversed the conviction of private respondents and acquitted them of the charge of grave threats.17
The RTC reviewed the records of the case anew and found that one of the witnesses for the prosecution, Ramon Bulakit (Ramon), private respondents' neighbor, who has no stake in the case, testified that petitioners did not point their firearms to private respondents and uttered, "Apay kayat yun nga agayos ti dara ditoy?"18 During the examination of the said impartial witness in the trial court, he was asked several times whether he saw petitioners point their firearms to private respondents and utter the threatening words. However, the witness was firm that nothing like that happened. When the trial court itself clarified from the witness, he confirmed that there was no such thing that happened. He merely reiterated that after firing their pistols in the air, petitioners left.19
The RTC noted that the testimony of Ramon contradicted the theory of the prosecution. According to the RTC, the fact that petitioners did not point their guns to private respondents and threatened them, is fatal to the cause of the prosecution because this negates the finding of grave threats.20
While the RTC conceded that petitioners may have fired their guns in the air as warning shots, the same does not constitute grave threats. The warning shots are part of petitioners' exercise of their duty when private respondents prevented the arrest of Sonny and blocked petitioners from effecting the same. According to the RTC, the warning shots are reasonably necessary for petitioners to perform their duty of arresting Sonny notwithstanding the resistance from private respondents, their relatives, and neighbors.21
Private respondents moved for reconsideration. However, the RTC denied the same in an Order22 dated July 4, 2018.
Aggrieved, private respondents filed a petition for certiorari to the CA ascribing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC in acquitting petitioners.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On February 28, 2019, the CA rendered its Decision23 dated February 28, 2019 reversing and setting aside the judgment of acquittal issued by the RTC for having been made with grave abuse of discretion.24
According to the CA, the RTC's reliance on the testimony of Ramon, a neighbor of private respondents, in acquitting petitioners was a mistake. The CA held that Ramon was merely a neighbor who only saw the incident from afar. Hence, Ramon would not have heard one of the petitioners uttering threatening words against private respondents.25 The CA likewise observed that the MCTC found the version of the prosecution to be more credible. This should have prompted the RTC to be more careful in examining the testimony of a neighbor as compared to the totality of the testimonies of the other witnesses.26
Because of the reversal of their acquittal, petitioners moved for reconsideration. However, the CA denied the motion in a Resolution27 dated August 13, 2019.
Petitioners then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari28 arguing that the acquittal of petitioners already attained finality because private respondents filed the motion for reconsideration without the conformity of the public prosecutor.29 Petitioners likewise claim that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in acquitting them.30 Hence, the reversal of petitioners' acquittal violates their right against double jeopardy.31
In their Comment,32 private respondents countered that their private prosecutor had authority to prosecute the case until the end of the trial even in the absence of a public prosecutor.33 Further, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a manifestation adopting their private prosecutor's petition for certiorari to the CA, questioning petitioners' acquittal.34 Private respondents insist that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it disregarded the testimonies of prosecution witnesses except that of Ramon.35
In their Reply,36 petitioners reiterate their arguments in the petition.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether the CA violated petitioners' constitutional right against double jeopardy when it reversed the RTC's judgment of acquittal for grave threats.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is meritorious.
A judgment of acquittal, whether ordered by the trial or the appellate court, is final, unappealable, and immediately executory upon its promulgation.37 This iron clad rule has only one exception: grave abuse of discretion that is strictly limited whenever there is a violation of the prosecution's right to due process such as when it is denied the opportunity to present evidence or where the trial is sham or when there is a mistrial, rendering the judgment of acquittal void.38
An example of an exception to the finality-of-acquittal rule is the case of Galman v. Sandiganbayan39 where the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court because the previous trial conducted was a mockery. The unique facts surrounding the Galman case constitute the very narrow exception to the application of the right against double jeopardy. Hence, in order for the CA to take cognizance of the certiorari petition, private respondents and the prosecution must have clearly demonstrated that the RTC blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.40
Here, in setting aside, petitioners' acquittal, the CA reviewed the evidence presented by the parties before the MCTC. The CA held that the RTC mistakenly ruled that there were inconsistencies in the testimony of one of the prosecution witnesses which belie the theory of the prosecution that petitioners pointed their guns at private respondents and uttered threatening words. The CA based its reversal of the acquittal of petitioners on the RTC's alleged misappreciation of evidence. It is a settled rule that misappreciation of the evidence is a mere error of judgment that does not qualify as an exception to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine. An error of judgment is not correctible by a writ of certiorari.41
In this case, the petition for certiorari of private respondents before the CA is bereft of any allegation, much less, evidence that the prosecution's right to due process was violated or that the proceedings before the MCTC and RTC were a mockery such that petitioners' acquittal was a foregone conclusion.42 It is immaterial whether the RTC was correct in its assessment of the evidence leading to the acquittal of petitioners. The fact remains that petitioners' right against double jeopardy already attached when the RTC acquitted them. Hence, no amount of error of judgment will constitute an error of jurisdiction that would have allowed the CA to review the same through a petition for certiorari.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 28, 2019 and the Resolution dated August 13, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 157140, finding Dino Wally Cogasi, Jerry Silawon, Reynaldo Badua, Geoffrey Bantule, and Ramon Christopher Bueno guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of grave threats are hereby declared NULL and VOID for violation of their constitutional right against double jeopardy.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, Zalameda, Rosario, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 9-22
2 Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court); id. at pp. 150-162.
3 Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Elihu A. Ybañez; id. at 179-181.
4 Id. at 33.
5 Id. at 39-40.
6 Id. at 42.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 43.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 44.
11 Id. at 43-44.
12 Id. at 45.
13 Id. at 45-48.
14 Penned by Judge Danio P. Camacho; id. at 49-55.
15 Id. at 53-55.
16 Id. at 78-91.
17 Id. at 91.
18 Id. at 82.
19 Id. at 82-84.
20 Id. at 84.
21 Id. at 90.
22 Id. at 100-103.
23 Supra note 3.
24 Rollo, pp. 161.
25 Id. at 156-157.
26 Id. at 158.
27 Id. at 179-181.
28 Id. at 9-22.
29 Id. at 15.
30 Id. at 17.
31 Id. at 21.
32 Id. at 193-206.
33 Id. at 194.
34 Id. at 195.
35 Id.
36 Id. at 222-228.
37 Chiok v. People, 774 Phil. 230, 248 (2015).
38 People v. Arcega, G.R. No. 237489, August 27, 2020.
39 228 Phil. 42 (1986).
40 People v. Court of Appeals, 691 Phil. 783, 788 (2012).
41 Id. at 787.
42 Id. at 788.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
