FACTS:

Marvin Cruz and seven others were charged with robbery on September 19, 2013. Cruz posted bail through a cash bond. Later on, the private complainant filed an Affidavit of Desistance, leading to the dismissal of the case through a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Assistant City Prosecutor. Cruz filed a Motion to Release Cash Bond, but the Regional Trial Court denied it, contending that the case was dismissed due to desistance and not acquittal. The court also denied the motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, Cruz and his bondsman, Francisco Cruz, filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, claiming that the denial of the motion to release cash bond amounted to grave abuse of discretion. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, reasoning that it should have been filed as an appeal instead of a petition for certiorari. Cruz and Francisco then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied as well. Consequently, they sought redress from the Supreme Court by filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari, contending that the use of a petition for certiorari was appropriate in this particular case.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for being the wrong remedy to question the denial of a motion to release cash bond.

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari for being the wrong remedy to question the denial of a motion to release cash bond. The filing of a petition for certiorari is proper only when there is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is not a remedy to correct every error committed by lower courts. In this case, the Regional Trial Court's denial of the motion to release cash bond, although possibly an error in the application of the law, does not amount to grave abuse of discretion.

PRINCIPLES:

• The writ of certiorari is a remedy specifically to keep lower courts and tribunals within the bounds of their jurisdiction and to prevent them from committing grave abuse of discretion in excess of their jurisdiction. It is not a general utility tool that can be used to correct every error committed by a lower court.

• To file a petition for certiorari, the petitioner must show that the tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Additionally, there should be no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law.