Case Digest (G.R. No. 225410)
Facts:
BBB v. Amy B. Cantilla, G.R. No. 225410, June 17, 2020, Supreme Court Second Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner BBB (mother of the alleged victim) filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals’ Resolutions dated February 9, 2016 and June 23, 2016 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 143741, which had dismissed her petition for certiorari challenging the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 162, San Juan Station, Orders of July 10, 2015 and October 12, 2015 that granted respondent Amy B. Cantilla’s demurrer to evidence and denied petitioner’s motions for reconsideration and for inhibition.The Information charged respondent with Child Abuse under R.A. No. 7610 for acts allegedly committed between January and April 2006 upon petitioner’s then‑3‑year‑old daughter AAA. Petitioner, who worked as a flight attendant and was frequently away, alleged that AAA was left in the care of respondent (househelper) and another yaya, Belle Torres. After a visit in April 2006, petitioner was later informed by a friend, Maria Antonina C. Espiritu, that Espiritu’s yaya observed respondent allegedly mistreating AAA; petitioner terminated the maids in August 2006. Petitioner only confronted respondent in August 2010, and reported the alleged abuse leading to the filing of the Information.
During trial, the prosecution presented petitioner, an NBI official who took AAA’s sworn statement, and AAA, who testified on January 28, 2014 about events occurring when she was three but testifying at age 12. The prosecution formally offered documentary evidence on November 11, 2014. On April 13, 2015 respondent filed a Demurrer to Evidence arguing the prosecution failed to present the identified eyewitness Espiritu and that AAA’s testimony was doubtful and attenuated by time.
In an Order dated July 10, 2015, the RTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence. Petitioner moved for reconsideration and for the inhibition of the presiding judge; both motions were denied in an Order dated October 12, 2015. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. In its February 9, 2016 Resolution the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari on multiple procedural grounds: (1) it was filed beyond the 60‑day reglementary period under Section 4, Rule 65, (2) the Verification and Certification Against Forum‑Shopping were defective and not executed in accordance with Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Notarial Rules, and (3) the People of the Philippines was not impleaded as a respondent in violation of Section 7, Rule 3. Petitioner’s motion to reinstate w...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave and serious error in dismissing petitioner’s petition for certiorari?
- Did RTC‑Branch 162 commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting respondent’s demurrer to evidence?
- Did the presiding judge of RTC‑Branch 162 commit grave abuse of discretion in refusing to inhibit despite an alleged expression of prejudice ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)