October 1981 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > October 1981 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-53525 October 30, 1981 - BIENVENIDO SASI v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-53525. October 30, 1981.]
BIENVENIDO SASI, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE HONORABLE SANTIAGO GAYOMALI, Respondents.
Enojas, Defensor and Associate, for Petitioners.
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Nathanael P. de Pano, Jr. and Solicitor Luisito P. Escutin for Respondents.
SYNOPSIS
Bienvenido Sasi was convicted of serious physical injuries by the municipal court of San Joaquin. Iloilo, sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months to six (6) years and ordered to pay damages and attorney’s fees. When his application for probation was denied, he went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari alleging as grave abuse of discretion, the municipal judge’s denial thereof. His petition having been denied, he filed this present action. The Solicitor General, in his comment, asked that the petition be denied for lack of merit. Subsequently, the Court received information that the petitioner had been granted parole. Petitioner’s counsel, after being directed to comment on whether the appeal should be considered moot and academic, manifested that inasmuch at petitioner has been granted parole and cannot be found, the issues involved have been rendered moot and academic.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition but required the Municipal Judge to explain the discrepancy in respect to the penalty meted to petitioner as stated in the appealed decision and that stated in the certified true copy of the Receipt of Petitioner in Criminal Case No. 911 and petitioner’s Discharge on Parole stating that the accused was given "an indeterminate sentence of 4 months and 1 day to 3 years, 6 months and 20 days" only.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition but required the Municipal Judge to explain the discrepancy in respect to the penalty meted to petitioner as stated in the appealed decision and that stated in the certified true copy of the Receipt of Petitioner in Criminal Case No. 911 and petitioner’s Discharge on Parole stating that the accused was given "an indeterminate sentence of 4 months and 1 day to 3 years, 6 months and 20 days" only.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEALS; APPEAL FROM A DECISION DENYING PROBATION; DISMISSAL THEREOF WHERE ISSUES HAVE BECOME MOOT AND ACADEMIC; CASE AT BAR. — When pending appeal, the Court received a letter from the Municipal Judge who rendered the decision under review with the information that the petitioner had been granted parole by the Board of Pardons and Parole, the appeal is dismissed as the issues involved have been rendered moot and academic.
2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER LOWER COURTS; RESPONDENT JUDGE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN DISCREPANCY IN PENALTY IMPOSED. — Where the decision by the municipal court of San Joaquin, Iloilo in Criminal Case No. 911 for serious physical injuries stated that the accused was meted "an indeterminate sentence of two (2) years and four (4) months to six (6) years" but the certified true copy of the Receipt of Prisoner and the penalty stated in accused’s Discharge on Parole stated that the accused was given "an indeterminate sentence of four (4) months and 1 day to 3 years, 6 months and 20 days" only, the municipal Judge is ordered to explain the discrepancy in respect thereof.
2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER LOWER COURTS; RESPONDENT JUDGE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN DISCREPANCY IN PENALTY IMPOSED. — Where the decision by the municipal court of San Joaquin, Iloilo in Criminal Case No. 911 for serious physical injuries stated that the accused was meted "an indeterminate sentence of two (2) years and four (4) months to six (6) years" but the certified true copy of the Receipt of Prisoner and the penalty stated in accused’s Discharge on Parole stated that the accused was given "an indeterminate sentence of four (4) months and 1 day to 3 years, 6 months and 20 days" only, the municipal Judge is ordered to explain the discrepancy in respect thereof.
R E S O L U T I O N
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
Petitioner Bienvenido Sasi was convicted of serious physical injuries by the Municipal Court of San Joaquin, Iloilo, in Criminal Case No. 911. He was meted "an indeterminate sentence of two (2) years and four (4) months to six (6) years" and ordered to pay damages and attorney’s fees. He applied for probation but his application was denied. He went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari alleging that the municipal judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying his application for probation; he prayed that he be admitted to probation. The Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-10077-R denied the petition for certiorari; hence the instant petition which would have Us reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and admit the petitioner to probation.
After receiving the comment of the Solicitor General on the petition with the recommendation that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit, We received a letter from Municipal Judge David A. Alfeche, Jr. of San Joaquin, Iloilo, informing that the petitioner had been granted parole by the Board of Pardons and Parole on August 8, 1980. As a result We directed the petitioner to comment on the letter and to state whether his appeal should be considered moot and academic. The petitioner’s counsel has filed a manifestation which states in part: "2. The undersigned counsel respectfully states that despite efforts exerted, he cannot contact the petitioner anymore; that nevertheless under the circumstances the undersigned feels that in view of the parole of the petitioner, it would now appear that the issues involved in the present case have been rendered moot and academic." chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
We have noted, as above stated, that the petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate imprisonment of two (2) years and four (4) months, as minimum, to six (6) years, as maximum. However, the certified true copy of the Receipt of Prisoner Bienvenido Sasi in Criminal Case No. 911 of the Municipal Court of San Joaquin, Iloilo, states that Sasi was given "an indeterminate sentence of 4 months and 1 day to 3 years, 6 months and 20 days" only. (Rollo, p. 126.) This is also the penalty stated in Sasi’s Discharge on Parole. (Rollo, p. 127.)
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed for having become moot and academic. However, the Municipal Judge of San Joaquin, Iloilo, is hereby ordered to explain within ten (10) days from receipt the discrepancy in respect of the penalty stated in the decision and that stated in the receipt of prisoner.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion Jr., and De Castro, JJ., concur.
After receiving the comment of the Solicitor General on the petition with the recommendation that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit, We received a letter from Municipal Judge David A. Alfeche, Jr. of San Joaquin, Iloilo, informing that the petitioner had been granted parole by the Board of Pardons and Parole on August 8, 1980. As a result We directed the petitioner to comment on the letter and to state whether his appeal should be considered moot and academic. The petitioner’s counsel has filed a manifestation which states in part: "2. The undersigned counsel respectfully states that despite efforts exerted, he cannot contact the petitioner anymore; that nevertheless under the circumstances the undersigned feels that in view of the parole of the petitioner, it would now appear that the issues involved in the present case have been rendered moot and academic." chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
We have noted, as above stated, that the petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate imprisonment of two (2) years and four (4) months, as minimum, to six (6) years, as maximum. However, the certified true copy of the Receipt of Prisoner Bienvenido Sasi in Criminal Case No. 911 of the Municipal Court of San Joaquin, Iloilo, states that Sasi was given "an indeterminate sentence of 4 months and 1 day to 3 years, 6 months and 20 days" only. (Rollo, p. 126.) This is also the penalty stated in Sasi’s Discharge on Parole. (Rollo, p. 127.)
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed for having become moot and academic. However, the Municipal Judge of San Joaquin, Iloilo, is hereby ordered to explain within ten (10) days from receipt the discrepancy in respect of the penalty stated in the decision and that stated in the receipt of prisoner.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion Jr., and De Castro, JJ., concur.
