1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The OSG, on the other hand, submitted its Manifestation and Motion.[16] It informed the Court that the trial court proceeded with the hearing of the criminal cases in accordance with A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, or the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases. The prosecution has only Mary Jane to present as a witness. Hence, the OSG prays that the Court immediately resolve the instant Petition for Review and to suspend the application of A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC in the criminal proceedings before the trial court. In this Court's March 27, 2019 Resolution,[17] it denied the motion for intervention of Mary Jane's parents for failure to establish legal interest in the instant case that is actual and material as well as direct and immediate. The Court likewise denied the OSG's prayer to suspend the application of A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC in the criminal proceedings before the trial court for lack of basis. Issues (a) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the writ of certiorari, and; (b) Whether Mary Jane's testimony may be validly acquired through deposition by written interrogatories. The Court's Ruling The Court finds the petition impressed with merit. On Procedural Matters The OSG avers that the appellate court erred in giving due course and granting the respondents' Petition for Certiorari there being other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law. It further argues that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it granted the State's motion to allow the taking of Mary Jane's testimony by deposition through written interrogatories. The Court agrees. Impropriety of the writ of certiorari before the Court of Appeals A writ of certiorari is limited in scope and narrow in character. It is available only to correct acts rendered without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. In other words, certiorari is proper to correct errors of jurisdiction, and not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court. Thus, any alleged errors committed by the trial court within the bounds of its jurisdiction and in the exercise of its discretion are mere errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal or a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, and not by a petition for certiorari.[18] The Supreme Court's pronouncement in Cruz v. People,[19] citing Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company[20] is instructive on the scope of certiorari: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65855 6/22