Case Digest (G.R. No. 142051)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. The Honorable Court of Appeals (Fourth Division), Claudio Francisco, Jr. and Rudy Pacao, G.R. No. 142051, February 24, 2004, the Supreme Court First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General; the respondents are private respondents Claudio Francisco Jr. and Rudy Pacao, originally charged along with several police officers and civilians in connection with the fatal shooting of Marcial Boyet Azada on December 2, 1989 at the Le Janni Restaurant in Tigaon, Camarines Sur.
An Information charged multiple accused with murder and others as accessories. Several co-accused were dismissed on demurrer to evidence or by reason of death; trial proceeded against Francisco Jr. and Pacao. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 32, Pili, Camarines Sur) found the facts as narrated by the prosecution: Francisco Jr. fired the first fatal shot at close range, and Pacao fired additional shots; recovered projectiles and autopsy findings were introduced; the trial court convicted Francisco Jr. of homicide and Pacao of attempted murder, imposed indeterminate sentences and ordered indemnities and damages, while acquitting two other accused, Joseph Pellas and Gabriel Alosan.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (Fourth Division) reversed the RTC and acquitted respondents Francisco and Pacao. The CA relied on three circumstances in absolving Francisco: (1) Francisco’s sitting position made it impossible for him to have fired the fatal shots given entry points; (2) ballistic experts could not positively identify the recovered bullet as coming from the firearm alleged by the prosecution; and (3) a paraffin test on Francisco was negative for powder burns. The CA acquitted Pacao on a theory that Azada resisted arrest and fired at officers, so Pacao acted in self‑defense and in the performance of duty.
The People filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleging that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing the convictions. The petition challenged the CA’s factual and evidentiary findings (witness placements, ballistic conclusions, retracted wi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to challenge the Court of Appeals’ acquittal of respondents?
- Would appellate review of the Court of Appeals’ judgment of acquittal violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)