REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Petitioner,

-versus- G.R. NO. 190002

(Criminal Case No. 666)
HON. MARJORIE NOLASCO,
Presiding Judge of the Regional
Trial Court of Makati City,
Branch 1, and Mr. Mack Hale
D. Beast,
Respondents,

x-----------------------------------x

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION

Petitioner, through counsels, unto this Honorable Court,

respectfully state that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65

of the Revised Rules of Court which seeks to annul the Order
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 789,
dated 13 April 2019 denying the Motion for Consideration filed
by herein Petitioner.

NATURE OF PETITION

1. This petition respectfully seeks the review by this

Honorable Court of the order, dated 13 April 2019,
issued by the Hon. Marjorie Nolasco, Presiding Judge of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) OF Antipolo City, Branch
789, by way of Certiorari under Rule 65.

1
 2. The petitioner respectfully submits that the
respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion in
acquitting the private respondent. There is no appeal or
any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law in seeking the reversal or nullification of the
said Order except this Rule 65 Petition.

4. This Petitioner submits that the Regional Trial Court’s

Decision and Order in acquitting the accused, committed
not merely reversible errors of judgment thereby
rendering the assailed judgment null and void.1

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

5. Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, and

pursuant to the ruling in Neypes vs. Court of Appeals,
herein Petitioners have fifteen (15) days from the notice of
the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from,
or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or
reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the
judgment.

6. Notice of the RTC Order denying the Motion for

Reconsideration filed by herein Petitioners was received
by Petitioners, through their counsels, on 13 April 2019,
thus, Petitioners had until 27 April 2018 within which to
file the Petition.

7. Petitioners, therefore, are filing the instant Petition within

the 15-day reglementary period provided for under the
Rules of Court.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

1. Tatay N. Beauty, herein private Petitioner, and her

deceased daughter Belle after attending a meeting in
1 People vs Court of Appeals and Carampatana, G.R. No. 183652, February 25, 2015

2
 Forest Ridge Village, San Isidro, Antipolo City on the
evening of 15 August 2018 were abducted by herein
private Respondent, Mack Hale D. Beast, by striking the
Tatay at the back of his head with a blunt object and
overpowering Belle, and forcibly took the two into his
mansion at #77 Enchanted Mansion, Antipolo City.

2. The private Petitioner positively identified with

certainty the Private Respondent as their kidnapper and
the man who raped her daughter Belle, multiple times
during their detention and coherently narrated the events
that transpired on 15 August 2019 to 19 August 2019
throughout the trial.

3. In addition, Tatay was able to identify important

incriminating evidences such as the different yellow
dresses (3 pieces) used by Belle when she was raped
repeatedly by the accused bearing blood stains2 and the
key to the cells used to escape3.

4. Another witness presented by the prosecution was, Mr.

Cogsworth W. Clock (Mr. Clock for brevity), effectively
corroborated Tatay’s statements about their detention
from 15 August to 19 August 2019 and positively
identified the accused, as the person who killed Belle on
the day that they are going to escape.

5. Furthermore, Mr. Clock was able to describe and identify

the heirloom dagger used by the Mack Hale to stab Belle
to death, as reflected in the Autopsy Report, Final
Anatomic Diagnosis and Clinical Abstract prepared by
Dr. Trafalgar D. Law4 submitted to this court during the
Pre-trial and was accepted during the formal offer.

6. On 30 March 2019, the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo,

thru herein respondent, Judge Marjorie Nolasco, decided
in favor of the Petitioner and found the private
respondent guilty of the crime of Kidnapping and Illegal
Detention. The same Court however acquitted the private
respondent for failure of the prosecution to prove his

2 Exhibit “Q”, “Q-1”, “Q-2” and “Q-3” in court records

3 Exhibit “P” in court records
4 Marked as “C”, “C-1” and “C-2” in court records.

3
 guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the charges of Rape
and Murder.

7. The Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on 5

April 2019, but the Honorable Court, in its 13 April 2019
Decision, reversed its previous decision and acquitted the
private respondent of all charges for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION OF ACQUITTAL

IS NULL AND VOID FOR HAVING BEEN RENDERED
WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING
TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, AN
EXEMPTION TO THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE
JEOPARDY.

SUBMISSIONS

I. THE HONORABLE COURT COMMITTED WITH

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT
RENDERED A DECISION OF ACQUITTTAL.

II. FILING OF PETITION FOR REVIEW BY WAY OF

CERTIORARI DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO
PUTTING THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT IN DOUBLE
JEOPARDY.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

I. THE HONORABLE
COURT COMMITTED WITH
GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING
TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN IT
RENDERED A DECISION OF
ACQUITTTAL.

4
8. Under Paragraph 1, Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court:

Section 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any

tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions has acted without or
in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal,
or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law, a person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified
petition in the proper court, alleging the
facts with certainty and praying that
judgment be rendered annulling or
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal,
board or officer, and granting such incidental
reliefs as law and justice may require.5

9. In this case, the aggrieved parties the aggrieved parties

are the State, acting through the Office of the Solicitor
General and the private offended party or complainant. It
is therefore without a doubt that the Petitioner has proper
legal standing to bring the action to this honorable court
and question the judgement of acquittal rendered by the
Regional Trial Court of Antipolo.

10. A judgment of acquittal, may be assailed through a

petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
showing that the lower court, in acquitting the accused,
committed not merely reversible errors of judgment,
but also exercised grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or a denial of due
process, thereby rendering the assailed judgment null and
void.

11. There is grave abuse of discretion when the disputed act

of the lower court goes beyond the limits of discretion
thus effecting an injustice.6

5Emphasis supplied.
6Dissenting Opinion of then Associate Justice Claudio Teehankee in Chemplex (Phils.), Inc. v. Hon. Pamatian, 156 Phil.
408, 457 (1974)

5
 In this case, the error raised is not mere error in the
evaluation of evidence but a capricious and whimsical
error of judgement showing grave abuse of discretion was
exercised arbitrarily or despotically by the Respondent, as
is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.

12. In reaching its judgement, the Respondent merely relied

on the evidence presented by the defense and utterly
disregarded that of the prosecution even though the
prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to prove the
guilt of the private respondent.

13. It is well settled in our jurisprudence that positive

identification by the prosecution witnesses of the accused
as perpetrators of the crime is entitled to greater weight
than their denials and alibis.7

14. But the respondent in reaching its judgement easily swept

under the rug categorical and positive identification made
by the prosecution’s witnesses in favor of the flimsy denial
and alibi of the accused, herein private respondent.

15. While denial and alibi is indeed a valid defense, it cannot,

without clear and convincing evidence proving that he
was at some other place at the time of the commission of
the crime but also that it was physically impossible for
him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate
vicinity weigh more than the positive identification of the
witnesses presented by the prosecution.

16. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be

buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to
merit credibility.8 It is a negative self-serving assertion
that deserves no weight in law if unsubstantiated by clear
and convincing evidence. The barefaced denial of the
charge by the accused even if one of his friends or relative
had testified cannot prevail over the positive and

7 People v. Ambatang, G.R. No. 205855, March 29, 2017

8 Emphasis supplied.

6
 forthright identification of him as the perpetrator of the
dastardly act.9

17. Furthermore, while the credibility of both witnesses, Tatay

N. Beauty and Cogsworth W. Clock, were questioned in
the accused’s Affidavit, they were never confronted by
such allegations in open court during their cross-
examination.10 Consequently, such allegation tantamount
to mere hearsay since the witnesses are not given the
chance to defend their credibility in open court.

18. Applying the above-mentioned rules and jurisprudence,

the Respondent court, gravely erred in rendering a
decision of acquittal based solely on denial and alibi
which were not sufficiently substantiated to overcome the
weight of testimonial and object evidence presented by the
prosecution. The Respondent’s decision is a patent nullity
for lack of due process and for having been rendered with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.

II. FILING OF PETITION

FOR REVIEW BY WAY OF
CERTIORARI DOES NOT
TANTAMOUNT TO PUTTING
THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT
IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

19. The Supreme Court in the case of Regional Agrarian

Reform Adjudication Board v. CA11 elucidated that rules of
procedure are meant to be tools to facilitate a fair and
orderly conduct of proceedings. Strict adherence thereto
must not get in the way of achieving substantial justice.
As long as their purpose is sufficiently met and no
violation of due process and fair play takes place, the
rules should be liberally construed.

9 People of the Philippines vs Gajardo, G.R. No. 213390, March 15, 2017
10 Emphasis supplied.
11 Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. CA, G.R. No. 165155, April 13, 2010,

7
20. Liberal construction of the rules is the controlling
principle to effect substantial justice. The relaxation or
suspension of procedural rules, or the exemption of a case
from their operation, is warranted when compelling
reasons exist or when the purpose of justice requires it.
Thus, litigations should, as much as possible, be decided
on their merits and not on sheer technicalities.12

21. As a general rule, the prosecution cannot appeal or bring

error proceedings from a judgment rendered in favor of
the defendant in a criminal case. The reason is that a
judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory,
and the prosecution is barred from appealing lest the
constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy be
violated.

22. Despite acquittal, however, either the offended party or

the accused may appeal, but only with respect to the civil
aspect of the decision. Or, said judgment of acquittal may
be assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court showing that the lower court, in
acquitting the accused, committed not merely reversible
errors of judgment, but also exercised grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or a
denial of due process, thereby rendering the assailed
judgment null and void

23. While it is true that double jeopardy will attach in case

the prosecution appeals a decision acquitting the
accused, it is likewise true that an acquittal rendered in
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction does not really “acquit” and therefore does not
terminate the case. There can be no double jeopardy if the
said acquittal is based on a void indictment.13

12 Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc., G.R. No. 188051, November 22, 2010,
13 People v Court of Appeals, 389 SCRA 461

8
 RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed that:

1. This Petition be given DUE COURSE;

2. The questioned ORDER, dated 16 April 2019 of the

Public Respondent be SET ASIDE, REVERSED AND
NULLIFIED without prejudice to the continuation of
the proceedings on the merits in Criminal Case No.
666 (Special Complex Crime of Kidnapping and
Serious Illegal Detention with Rape and Homicide).

FURTHER, the Petitioner respectfully prays for such and

other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the
premises.

Makati City, 20 April 2019.

By:
ATTY. ANDREW LASTROLLO
Roll No. 123098
IBP Lifetime No. 192038839
MCLE Compliance No. V-000129321; 4-8-15

EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

A copy of the instant Petition was furnished to the opposing

parties and their counsel through registered mail due to time
and distance constraints and due to lack of messengerial
personnel to affect such personal service.

Copy Furnished by Personal Service:

Atty. Karyll Mitra

Counsel for the Plaintiffs
916-I URC Building, Blumentritt St.
Sampaloc, Manila