07 Cruz v. People
07 Cruz v. People
07 Cruz v. People
121422 February 23, 1999] On October 27, 1994, petitioner filed with the Court of
Appeals a petition for certiorari to annul the three (3)
orders, namely: the order admitting the prosecution's
NOEL CRUZ y DIGMA, petitioner,
formal offer of evidence; the order denying his demurrer
vs. to evidence; and the order denying petitioner's motion
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE COURT OF
for reconsideration, for being issued capriciously,
APPEALS and THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, arbitrarily and whimsically, in utter disregard of
BRANCH VI, MANILA, respondents.
controlling law and jurisprudence, and with grave abuse
of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
On June 26, 1990, before the arraignment of the We resolve to deny the petition.
accused, his parents, Timoteo and Ana Cruz, filed with We find no reversible error in the decision of the Court
the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, a of Appeals dismissing the petition for certiorari. The
petition 5 for habeas corpus in his behalf. Thereafter, the rulings of the trial court on procedural questions and on
accused was arraigned the Manila court and pleaded not admissibility of evidence during the course of a trial are
guilty to the charge. interlocutory in nature and may not be the subject of a
The trial court proceeded to try the case. After the separate appeal or review on certiorari, but may be
prosecution presented and formally offered its evidence, assigned as errors and reviewed in the appeal properly
the trial court issued an order 6 dated January 18, 1993, taken from the decision rendered by the trial court on
admitting in evidence the gun and ammunition seized the merits of the case.10 When the court has jurisdiction
from the accused, over his objections. After the over the case and person of the accused, any error in
prosecution had rested its case, petitioner, on motion the application of the law and the appreciation of
and upon leave of court, filed a demurrer to evidence. evidence committed by a court after it has acquired
On December 20, 1993, the trial court denied the jurisdiction over a case, may be corrected only by
demurrer, and ordered the accused to present his appeal. 11
evidence. 7 Instead, the petitioner filed a motion for Regarding the denial of the demurrer to evidence, we
reconsideration, which the trial court denied in an have likewise ruled that the question of whether the
order 8 dated July 8, 1994. evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to
convince the court that the defendant is guilty beyond 3 Rollo, p. 60.
reasonable doubt rests entirely within the sound
4 Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition.
discretion of the trial court. The error, if any, in the
denial of the demurrer to evidence may be corrected 5 SP No. 90-5898, Court of Appeals Record, pp. 94-98;
only by appeal. The appellate court will not review in the records, however, do not indicate the ruling of the
such special civil action the prosecution's evidence and court on the petition.
decide in advance that such evidence has or has not
established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable 6 Rollo, P·55.
doubt. The orderly procedure prescribed by the Revised
7 Rollo. p. 56.
Rules of Court is for the accused to present his
evidence, after which the trial court, on its own 8 Rollo, pp. 57-59.
assessment of the evidence submitted, will then properly
render its judgment of acquittal or conviction. 12 If 9 Rollo, pp. 47-54, penned by Justice Austria-Martinez.
judgment is rendered adversely against the accused, he 10 Peza v. Alikpala, 160 SCRA 31.
may appeal the judgment and raise the same defenses
and objections for review by the appellate court. 13 11 Day v. RTC of Zamboanga City, Br. XIII, 191 SCRA
610.
Admittedly, the general rule that the extraordinary writ
of certiorari is not available to challenge interlocutory 12 Cruz v. People, 144 SCRA 677.
orders of the trial court may be subject to exceptions.
13 Cruz, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 145.
When the assailed interlocutory orders are patently
erroneous 14 or issued grave abuse of discretion, 15 the 14 Salcedo-Ortañez v.·Court of Appeals, 235 SCRA 111.
remedy of the certiorari lies.
15 Villon, Jr. v. IAC, 144 SCRA 440.
Petitioner insists that he falls within the above
exceptions, warranting a review of the denial of his 16 Rule 120, Section 15, Revised Rules of Court.
petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner stresses that he was illegally arrested, and
consequently any evidence taken after the subsequent
search on his person is inadmissible in evidence.
He .points to alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses to show that he was
illegally arrested. He maintains that the evidence
presented is insufficient to sustain a conviction due to
the inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses. He
likewise claims that the prosecution has failed to
establish that the gun and ammunition presented during
the trial were the same items confiscated from him.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes