FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 121422. February 23, 1999.]

NOEL CRUZ y DIGMA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH VI, MANILA, respondents.

Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

SYNOPSIS

This is a petition for review challenging the decision of the Court of

Appeals denying for lack of merit the petition for certiorari filed by the
petitioner to annul the orders issued by the Regional Trial Court of Manila in
Criminal Case No. 90-85059, a criminal case filed against herein petitioner
for illegal possession of firearm. Particularly, petitioner seeks to annul the
three orders, namely: the order admitting the prosecution's formal offer of
evidence; the order denying his demurrer to evidence; and the order
denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. In its decision, the Court of
Appeals ruled that the assailed orders were interlocutory in nature and not
reviewable by certiorari. Moreover, the trial court's order admitting the
allegedly inadmissible evidence involved questions of facts, which are not
reviewable in petitions for certiorari. Aggrieved, petitioner filed this instant
petition for review. ACTaDH

The Supreme Court finds the petition not meritorious. The Court found
no reversible error in the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the
petition for certiorari. The rulings of the trial court on procedural questions
and on admissibility of evidence during the course of the trial are
interlocutory in nature and may not be the subject of a separate appeal or
review on certiorari. Accordingly, the Court denied the instant petition.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; RULINGS OF THE TRIAL

COURT ON PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS AND ON ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
DURING THE COURSE OF TRIAL ARE INTERLOCUTORY IN NATURE AND MAY
NOT BE THE SUBJECT OF SEPARATE APPEAL OR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI;
CASE AT BAR. — We find no reversible error in the decision of the Court of
Appeals dismissing the petition for certiorari. The rulings of the trial court on
procedural questions and on admissibility of evidence during the course of a
trial are interlocutory in nature and may not be the subject of a separate
appeal or review on certiorari, but may be assigned as errors and reviewed
in the appeal properly taken from the decision rendered by the trial court on
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 the merits of the case. When the court has jurisdiction over the case and
person of the accused, any error in the application of the law and the
appreciation of evidence committed by a court after it has acquired
jurisdiction over a case, may be corrected only by appeal. CASTDI

2. ID.; ID.; DENIAL OF THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE MAY BE

CORRECTED ONLY BY APPEAL; CASE AT BAR. — Regarding the denial of the
demurrer to evidence, we have likewise ruled that the question of whether
the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to convince the court
that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt rests entirely within the
sound discretion of the trial court. The error, if any, in the denial of the
demurrer to evidence may be corrected only by appeal. The appellate court
will not review in such special civil action the prosecution's evidence and
decide in advance that such evidence has or has not established the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The orderly procedure prescribed by
the Revised Rules of Court is for the accused to present his evidence, after
which the trial court, on its own assessment of the evidence submitted, will
then properly render its judgment of acquittal or conviction. If judgment is
rendered adversely against the accused, he may appeal the judgment and
raise the same defenses and objections for review by the appellate court. SEIaHT

DECISION

PARDO, J : p

The case before us is a petition for review of the decision of the Court
of Appeals 1 denying for lack of merit the petition forcertiorari filed by the
accused to annul the following orders issued by the Regional Trial Court,
Manila 2 in Criminal Case No. 90-85059, to wit:
(a) The order dated January 18, 1993, made in open court
admitting the formal offer of evidence of the prosecution;
(b) The order dated December 20, 1993, denying the
petitioner's demurrer to evidence;
(c) The order dated July 8, 1994, denying the petitioner's
motion for reconsideration.
On June 19, 1990, police officers arrested petitioner without warrant for
illegal possession of a .38 caliber revolver with six (6) rounds of ammunition
while waiting outside the Manila Pavilion Hotel along U.N. Ave., Manila.
On June 25, 1990, Assistant Prosecutor Tranquil P. Salvador, Jr. filed
with the Regional Trial Court, Manila, an information 3 against the accused
for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 4 , the accusatory portion of
which reads:
"That on or about June 19, 1990, in the City of Manila, Philippines,
the said accused did then and there willfully and unlawfully have in his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 possession and under his custody and control one (1) firearm .38 cal.
Colt revolver bearing Serial Number 376420 with six (6) live
ammunitions, without first having secured the necessary license or
permit therefor from the proper authorities."

On June 26, 1990, before the arraignment of the accused, his parents,
Timoteo and Ana Cruz, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, a
petition 5 for habeas corpus in his behalf. Thereafter, the accused was
arraigned the Manila court and pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The trial court proceeded to try the case. After the prosecution
presented and formally offered its evidence, the trial court issued an order 6
dated January 18, 1993, admitting in evidence the gun and ammunition
seized from the accused, over his objections. After the prosecution had
rested its case, petitioner, on motion and upon leave of court, filed a
demurrer to evidence. On December 20, 1993, the trial court denied the
demurrer, and ordered the accused to present his evidence. 7 Instead, the
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied in
an order 8 dated July 8, 1994.
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 formal offer of evidence; the order denying his
demurrer to evidence; and the order denying petitioner's motion for
reconsideration, for being issued capriciously, arbitrarily and whimsically, in
utter disregard of controlling law and jurisprudence, and with grave abuse of
discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
On November 7, 1994, the Court of Appeals gave due course to the
petition and ordered the trial court to temporarily refrain from further
proceeding with the trial of Criminal Case No. 90-85059.
On August 8, 1995, the Court of Appeals rendered decision 9 denying
the petition for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals ruled that the assailed
orders were interlocutory in nature and not reviewable by certiorari.
Petitioner should wait until the trial court has decided the case on its merits
and if aggrieved, appeal from his conviction. The Court of Appeals held that
the trial court's order admitting the allegedly inadmissible evidence involved
questions of facts, which are not reviewable in petitions for certiorari. There
being no error on jurisdiction, whatever error in judgment committed by the
trial court can not be corrected by certiorari.
Hence, this petition for review.
Petitioner avers that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial
court's order admitting in evidence the gun and ammunition, which are
allegedly inadmissible for being the fruits of an illegal warrantless arrest and
search. He further claims that the prosecution's evidence is insufficient to
sustain a conviction. Petitioner contends that the questioned orders, while
admittedly interlocutory in nature, are no longer subject to amendment or
correction by the trial court, hence, a review thereof is warranted to prevent
extreme prejudice to petitioner. Petitioner prays for a temporary restraining
order (TRO) to restrain the trial court from proceeding with the criminal case
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 pending this petition; a writ of preliminary injunction after the expiration of
the TRO; and to reverse the questioned resolution of the Court of Appeals.
We resolve to deny the petition.
We find no reversible error in the decision of the Court of Appeals
dismissing the petition for certiorari. The rulings of the trial court on
procedural questions and on admissibility of evidence during the course of a
trial are interlocutory in nature and may not be the subject of a separate
appeal or review on certiorari, but may be assigned as errors and reviewed
in the appeal properly taken from the decision rendered by the trial court on
the merits of the case. 10 When the court has jurisdiction over the case and
person of the accused, any error in the application of the law and the
appreciation of evidence committed by a court after it has acquired
jurisdiction over a case, may be corrected only by appeal. 11
Regarding the denial of the demurrer to evidence, we have likewise
ruled that the question of whether the evidence presented by the
prosecution is sufficient to convince the court that the defendant is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt rests entirely within the sound discretion of the
trial court. The error, if any, in the denial of the demurrer to evidence may be
corrected only by appeal. The appellate court will not review in such special
civil action the prosecution's evidence and decide in advance that such
evidence has or has not established the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The orderly procedure prescribed by the Revised Rules of
Court is for the accused to present his evidence, after which the trial court,
on its own assessment of the evidence submitted, will then properly render
its judgment of acquittal or conviction. 12 If judgment is rendered adversely
against the accused, he may appeal the judgment and raise the same
defenses and objections for review by the appellate court. 13
Admittedly, the general rule that the extraordinary writ of certiorari is
not available to challenge interlocutory orders of the trial court may be
subject to exceptions. When the assailed interlocutory orders are patently
erroneous 14 or issued with grave abuse of discretion, 15 the remedy of
certiorari lies.
Petitioner insists that he falls within the above exceptions, warranting a
review of the denial of his 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.
We disagree. The trial court, in resolving petitioner's motion for
reconsideration, squarely addressed the above contentions. The trial court
ruled that the seized evidence was admissible, and that the evidence
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 presented was sufficient to sustain a conviction, if the accused presented no
contrary evidence.
We find neither error nor patent abuse of discretion in the rulings of
the trial court on these issues. Thus, upon the denial of petitioner's demurrer
to evidence, he may present his evidence. 16 After trial on the merits, and
the court issues a verdict of conviction, petitioner may seasonably appeal
such decision, raising once again his defenses and objections.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby DENIES the petition. We order the
trial court to continue with the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 90-85059,
with deliberate dispatch.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. CA-SP G.R. No. 35586, promulgated on August 8, 1995, Rollo , pp. 47-54.
2. Presided over by Judge Roberto M. Lagman.

3. Rollo , p. 60.
4. Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition.

5. SP No. 90-5898, Court of Appeals Record, pp. 94-98; the records, however,
do not indicate the ruling of the court on the petition.
6. Rollo , p. 55.
7. Rollo , p. 56.
8. Rollo , pp. 57-59.
9. Rollo , pp. 47-54, penned by Justice Austria-Martinez.
10. Peza v. Alikpala, 160 SCRA 31.
11. Day v. RTC of Zamboanga City, Br. XIII, 191 SCRA 610.
12. Cruz. v. People, 144 SCRA 677.
13. Cruz, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 145.
14. Salcedo-Ortañez v. Court of Appeals , 235 SCRA 111.
15. Villalon, Jr. v. IAC, 144 SCRA 440.
16. Rule 120, Section 15, Revised Rules of Court.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com