Lanzanas v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 237302. June 26, 2019.]

EDWARD D. LANZANAS, ALSO KNOWN AS "RAFAEL DE GUZMAN", petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 26, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 237302 (Edward D. Lanzanas, also known as "Rafael De Guzman" v. People of the Philippines)

After review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its January 31, 2018 Decision, 1 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.

It is a settled rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. The function of the Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts. 2

In this case, petitioner's issues are factual in nature and thus, the Court has no power to resolve such, save for exceptional circumstances which are not present here. The arguments raised by petitioner would be best threshed out during the trial in the RTC. HTcADC

Further, the CA correctly ruled that if at all, the RTC merely committed an error of judgment and not of jurisdiction, hence, certiorari will not lie. Having failed to substantially prove grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC, petitioner's remedy is to appeal from the final judgment and assign as error the denial of the motion to quash. 3 The denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not appealable; an appeal from an interlocutory order is not allowed under Section 1 (b), 4 Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it be a proper subject of a petition for certiorari which can be used only in the absence of an appeal or any other adequate, plain and speedy remedy. The plain and speedy remedy upon denial of an interlocutory order is to proceed to trial. 5

Be that as it may, the RTC is likewise correct that a mistake in the name of the accused is not equivalent to, and does not necessarily amount to, a mistake in the identity of the accused. Identification of a person is not established solely through knowledge of the name of a person. Familiarity with physical features particularly those of the face, is actually the best way to identify a person. One may be familiar with the face but not necessarily the name. It does not follow, therefore, that to be able to identify a person, one must first know his name. 6 These matters relating to the identification of petitioner as one of the accused would be best resolved in a trial and not by merely claiming that petitioner's real name is not included in the information.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The January 31, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 146698 is AFFIRMED. CAIHTE

SO ORDERED."JARDELEZA, J., on official leave.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 27-34; penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Marie Christine Azcarraga Jacob, concurring.

2.Heirs of Villanueva v. Heirs of Mendoza, et al., 810 Phil. 172, 177-178 (2017).

3. See Enrile, et al. v. Judge Manalastas, et al., 746 Phil. 43, 59 (2014).

4.Section 1. Subject of appeal. — An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.

   No appeal may be taken from:

xxx xxx xxx

   (b) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment.

5.Galzote v. Briones, et al., 673 Phil. 165, 172 (2011).

6.People v. Verzosa, et al., 355 Phil. 890, 904 (1998).