CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | ANTONE V. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 225146, 20 NOVEMBER 2017
ANTONE V. PEOPLE,
G.R. NO. 225146, 20 NOVEMBER 2017
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Rule 122 of
the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Rules) especially provides that
“[e]xcept as provided in the last paragraph of Section 13, Rule 124, all other
appeals to the Supreme Court (SC) shall be by petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45.
FACTS
The instant
case stemmed from two (2) separate Informations4 filed before
the Regional Trial Court of Guihulngan, Negros Oriental, Branch 64 (RTC) each
charging Antone of raping his then eleven (11)-year-old niece-in-law, AAA.
In a
Judgment dated January 6, 2011, the RTC
found Antone guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Simple
Statutory Rape, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape. the CA affirmed the RTC
ruling.
ISSUE
Whether or
not Antone’s conviction must be upheld.
RULING
The Petition must be
dimissed.
The Court notes that
Antone made a procedural lapse in elevating the case before the Court via a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Section
3(e), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Rules) especially
provides that “[e]xcept as provided in the last paragraph of Section 13, Rule
124, all other appeals to the Supreme Court shall be by petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45. In this regard, Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules
states: Section 13. Certification or appeal of case to the Supreme Court.—(a)
Whenever the Court of Appeals finds that the penalty of death should be
imposed, the court shall render judgment but refrain from making an entry of
judgment and forthwith certify the case and elevate its entire record to the
Supreme Court for review. (b) Where the judgment also imposes a lesser penalty
for offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the same
occurrence that gave rise to the more severe offense for which the penalty of
death is imposed, and the accused appeals, the appeal shall be included in the
case certified for review to the Supreme Court. (c) In cases where the Court of
Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it
shall render and enter judgment imposing such penalty. The judgment may be appealed
to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals.
Here, the court ruled
that In this case, the CA affirmed the imposition of the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to Antone for each count of Statutory Rape committed against AAA. As
such, he should have filed a notice of appeal before the CA instead of filing a
petition for review on certiorari before the Court. Accordingly, Antone’s
failure to timely file a notice of appeal before the CA resulted in the latter
court’s Decision dated July 31, 2015 and the Resolution dated April 22, 2016
lapsing into finality. Time and again, the Court has repeatedly held that “a
decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may
no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to
correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the
court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. This principle, known as the doctrine of immutability of
judgment, has a two-fold purpose, namely: (a) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus,
procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and (b) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the
risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist. Verily, it
fosters the judicious perception that the rights and obligations of every
litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time. As such,
it is not regarded as a mere technicality to be easily brushed aside, but
rather, a matter of public policy which must be faithfully complied.”
