SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238027. June 6, 2018.]
SPS. HERMINIO DAYRIT AND LEONILA DAYRIT, petitioners,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 June 2018which reads as follows: cSEDTC
"G.R. No. 238027 — Sps. Herminio Dayrit and Leonila Dayrit versus People of the Philippines
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated November 28, 2017 and Resolution 2 dated March 15, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 151985, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for lack of merit and AFFIRM the CA Decision and Resolution for failure to sufficiently show reversible error that would warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The propriety of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 138 (RTC)'s dismissal of petitioners' Rule 65 petition for certiorari, which was affirmed by the CA, hinges on whether in fact the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure 3 applies to the instant case. The Court finds in the affirmative.
Section 1 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure defines its scope as follows:
SECTION 1. Scope. — This Rule shall govern the summary procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases falling within their jurisdiction: SDAaTC
xxx xxx xxx
B. Criminal Cases:
xxx xxx xxx
(5) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom: Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00). (Emphasis supplied)
Meanwhile, the penalty for the crime of Less Serious Physical Injuries as prescribed in the Revised Penal Code is arresto mayor, 4 or imprisonment of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months. 5 Hence, as correctly observed by the CA, the instant case is clearly covered by the said Rule. Consequently, the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner before the RTC was correctly dismissed for being a prohibited pleading as the same was directed against the RTC's denial of their Demurrer to Evidence, which is an interlocutory order.
Parenthetically, the petitioners justify their resort to a Rule 65 petition by claiming that the RTC's Order denying their Demurrer to Evidence is patently erroneous given the defective Information, i.e., that the Information did not allege the specific date of the commission of the crime. 6 On this score, the Court affirms the CA's finding that the Information remains valid as the date of the commission of the crime is not a material element in this case. 7 acEHCD
In any case, even if the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is held inapplicable, the RTC was still correct in dismissing the same. It is well-settled that the remedy of certiorari, which is limited only to errors of jurisdiction, cannot be availed of to assail a ruling on a demurrer to evidence, which refers only to errors of judgment. In Resoso v. Sandiganbayan, 8 which similarly involved an order denying a demurrer to evidence, the Court categorically held that a Rule 65 petition for certiorari does not include the correction of the lower court's evaluation of evidence.
Further, the Court, in the instant Rule 45 Petition, cannot resort to reviewing the evidence below in determining the propriety of the RTC's dismissal of the petition for certiorari; questions of fact are outside the Court's scope of review in Rule 45 petitions. As an arbiter of laws, the Court is not duty bound to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.
Bearing the foregoing in mind, the Court finds no reversible error committed by the CA in its Decision dated November 28, 2017. Hence, the Petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 32-41. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, with Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting concurring.
2.Id. at 29-30.
3. RESOLUTION OF THE COURT EN BANC DATED OCTOBER 15, 1991 PROVIDING FOR THE REVISED RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE FOR METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS.
4. REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 265.
5.Id., Art. 27.
6. See rollo, pp. 21-22.
7.Id. at 38-39.
8. 377 Phil. 249, 256 (1999).