REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,

-versus-

JUVENAL E. BELLA
Respondent,

MIGUEL G. PEARSON
Private Respondent.

X-------------------------X

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

COMES NOW, petitioner PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, duly

represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, through the undersigned
counsel in the above-entitled case, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
states and alleges:

PETITION

PETITIONER, respectfully alleges that:

(1) Private respondent is of legal age and resident of 1501 Swallow Drive, White
Plains, Quezon City, where he may be served with legal processes. Respondent is
also of legal age and is the presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City Branch 302, where he may be served with legal processes. He is being made
respondent herein in his capacity as presiding Judge of said Regional Trial Court.

(2) On August 27, 2015, in the said Regional Trial Court, the petitioner filed an
Information docketed as Criminal Case No. QC-015-0011, wherein the petitioner
herein was the complainant and the respondent Miguel G. Pearson was the
accused;

(3) On September 2, 2015, the respondent Judge rendered judgment in favor of

petitioner and against private respondent Miguel G. Pearson in Criminal Case
No. QC-015-0011, wherein the latter was convicted of the crime of Parricide,
defined and penalized under Art. 246 of the Revised Penal Code, certified copy
of said judgment is attached hereto and made part hereof as Annex “A”;

(4) Before the finality of said judgment, respondent filed a Notice of Appeal
before the Regional Trial Court, certified copy of which is attached hereto as as
Annex “B”;

(5) Respondent Judge gave due course to the appeal and reversed its former
ruling, thereby acquitting private respondent Miguel G. Pearson of the heinous
crime of Parricide, defined and penalized under Art. 246 of the Revised Penal
Code, attached hereto as Annex “C”;

(6) The respondent Judge, despite the amount of evidence presented by the
petitioner pointing to the guilt of the accused, issued an order granting the
appeal, which was received by petitioner on September 10, 2015, and ten (10)
days thereafter or on September 20, 2015, the present petition for certiorari is
timely filed;

(7) There is no appeal, plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law;

(8) In support of the foregoing allegations, the petitioner submits the following:

ARGUMENTS

A judgment of acquittal may be assailed by the People in a petition for

certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court without placing the accused in
double jeopardy. However, in such case, the People is burdened to establish that
the court a quo, acted without jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion generally
refers to capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to
an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty imposed by
law, or to act in contemplation of law or where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. No grave
abuse of discretion may be attributed to a court simply because of its alleged
misapplication of facts and evidence, and erroneous conclusions based on said
evidence. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, and not errors
or mistakes in the findings and conclusions of the trial court. 1

The Honorable Regional Trial Court Judge was in error in issuing the
order, Annex “D”, which reversed its judgment of conviction, Annex “A”,
despite the presence of circumstantial evidence to prove that private respondent
Miguel G. Pearson is guilty of the crime of Parricide. Circumstantial evidence or
indirect evidence is that evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue through
an inference, which the fact draws from the evidence established. 2 Rule 113,
Section 4 of the Rules of Court provides the requisites for circumstantial evidence
to be sufficient for conviction which are: (a) there is more than one circumstance;
(b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; (c) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. Petitioner presented several witnesses in court, which testified
that there is not only motive and intent on the part of Miguel Pearson to end the
life of the victim, but the circumstances, which prove that it was only Miguel
Pearson who had the chance to be with the victim the very day she was killed.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that:

(1) The petition is given DUE COURSE;
(2) Judgement be rendered declaring NULL and VOID the Order, Annex “C”,
which is under question;
(3) Private respondent be adjudged GUILTY of the crime of Parricide;
(3) The Honorable Court GRANT in favor of the petitioner such other and
further relief just and equitable under the circumstances.

Office of the Solicitor General

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village,
Makati City, 1229
September 10, 2015

1
People v. Sandiganbayan, First Div., G.R. Nos. 162748-50, March 28, 2006.
2
People v. Matito, 423 SCRA 617.
 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, Solicitor-General Edward O. Norton, of legal age, after having been duly sworn
in accordance with law, depose and state that:

1. I am the undersigned counsel duly representing the interests of petitioner

People of the Philippines, in the above-stated case;

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing petition;

3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and correct
of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents and
records in my possession;

4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same
issues in the Supreme Court or any other tribunal or agency;

5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is

pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency;

6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or
is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal
or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this
Honorable Court.
                                                                                                                                                                              
Affiant
 

                 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of __________

2015 at _________________ affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax
Certificate No.____________________ issued on ________________ 2015 at Makati
City.
 

Doc. No. ;
Page No. ;
Book No. ;
Series of 2015