Ongjoco v. Noguera-Soriano
This is a civil case, G.R. No. 249693, entitled Lolita Ongjoco vs. Narcisa Noguera-Soriano. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner Ongjoco and affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 160377. The CA dismissed Ongjoco's petition for certiorari for failure to show any reversible error committed by the CA. The CA also ruled that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it granted respondent's demurrer to evidence. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's granting of the demurrer to evidence amounted to an acquittal of respondent which may no longer be reversed by this Court without violating the right against double jeopardy of the accused.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249693. January 22, 2020.]
LOLITA ONGJOCO, petitioner, vs.NARCISA NOGUERA-SORIANO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated22 January 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249693 (Lolita Ongjoco v. Narcisa Noguera-Soriano). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the June 25, 2019 2 and September 26, 2019 3 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 160377 for failure of petitioner Lolita Ongjoco (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing her petition for certiorari. 4 AcICHD
As correctly ruled by the CA, a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a certiorari petition, the purpose of which is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case. 5 While there are admitted exceptions to this rule, 6 petitioner failed to establish that the present case falls under any of those exceptions. The CA was also correct in ruling 7 that the trial court committed no grave abuse of discretion when it granted 8 respondent Narcisa Noguera-Soriano's (respondent) demurrer to evidence. 9 Settled is the rule that in determining whether to grant or deny a demurrer to evidence, the court is required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient proof to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. 10 In granting the demurrer to evidence, the trial court ruled, based on its own evaluation of the prosecution evidence, that there was no prima facie case against respondent for the crime charged. Absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, the granting of the demurrer to evidence amounted to an acquittal of respondent which may no longer be reversed by this Court without violating the right against double jeopardy of the accused. 11
SO ORDERED. (Reyes, A., Jr. and Hernando, JJ., on official leave.)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-17.
2.Id. at 20-28. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz with Associate Justices Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas and Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon, concurring.
3.Id. at 37-39.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5.Republic v. Bayao, 710 Phil. 279, 287 (2013). See also rollo, pp. 23-24.
6.Republic v. Bayao, id. at 287-288.
7. See rollo, p. 27.
8. Not attached to the rollo.
9. Not attached to the rollo.
10. See Spouses Coronel v. Solis-Quesada, G.R. No. 237465, October 7, 2019.
11. See People v. Ting, G.R. No. 221505, December 5, 2018.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU