Facts:

• Raul B. Escalante was charged with violating Section 261 (q) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines) and Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions).
• The incident took place on April 3, 1995, during a fiesta celebration in Barangay Biasong, Almagro, Samar.
• Escalante, who was the Municipal Mayor of Almagro at the time, was accused of possessing a .45 caliber pistol without the necessary license or permit during the election period.
• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calbayog City, Samar, consolidated the two cases and found Escalante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both charges, sentencing him to imprisonment and fines.
• Escalante appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's decision but dismissed the charge of illegal possession of firearms based on prevailing jurisprudence.
• Escalante then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the CA's decision and resolution.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the CA's decision and resolution.
• The Court held that Escalante's petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was procedurally incorrect, as the proper remedy should have been a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
• The Court noted that the factual findings of the R...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court emphasized that the proper remedy for Escalante was to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 within the reglementary period, which he failed to do.
• The Court reiterated that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal.
• The Court highlighted that factual findings of the trial court and the CA, especially regarding the credibi...continue reading