SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 204063. March 22, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. DR. DAVID A. SOBREPEÑA, SR., DR. MONA LISA DABAO, DR. POLIXEMA ADORADA, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated22 March 2017which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 204063 — People of the Philippines vs. Dr. David A. Sobrepeña, Sr., Dr. Mona Lisa Dabao, Dr. Polixema Adorada, et al.
Acting on respondents' Motion for Reconsideration 1 of this Court's December 5, 2016 Decision 2 which granted petitioner's Petition for Review on Certiorari, 3 declared null and void the Court of Appeals' (CA) January 31, 2012 Decision and October 3, 2012 Resolution, and reinstated the September 9, 2010 and October 18, 2010 Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Santa Cruz, Laguna, the Court resolves to DENY the subject motion with FINALITY.
In seeking to have this Court reconsider its Decision, respondents assail our finding that the CA already delved on the merits of the case which is not within its certiorari jurisdiction. Interestingly, however, respondents contradicted their own argument by admitting that the CA "merely dealt with the evidence presented during the hearing on the Petition for Bail." 4 As already explained in our Decision, "a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. It does not include correction of the trial court's evaluation of the evidence and factual findings thereon. It does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof." 5
An examination of the CA Decision revealed that it made the following pronouncements: (1) "the assailed Order of September 9, 2010 failed to gaze upon the evidence presented xxx"; 6 (2) "the public respondent failed to take into consideration xxx"; 7 (3) "the trial court failed to appreciate the fact xxx"; 8 (4) "the trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the prosecution purposely took out of context xxx" 9 (5) the trial court failed to appreciate Carandang's testimony xxx; 10 and (6) "the trial court had missed the point that xxx". 11 Plainly, the CA made its own evaluation of the evidence presented which is beyond the province of its certiorari jurisdiction. The CA went beyond its jurisdiction when it tried to correct alleged errors of judgment by the Regional Trial Court.
Incidentally, this issue had already been exhaustively discussed in the assailed Decision. Moreover, in their Motion for Reconsideration, respondents failed to adduce substantial argument that would persuade this Court to modify, much less abandon its pronouncement. CAIHTE
ACCORDINGLY, let an entry of judgment be issued IMMEDIATELY. No further pleadings shall be entertained.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1363-1368.
2.Id. at 1355-1361.
3.Id. at 24-46.
4.Id. at 1363.
5.Id. at 1360, citing Chan vs. Chan, 590 Phil. 116, 132 (2008).
6.Id. at 58.
7.Id. at 59.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 60.
11.Id.