Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > March 2008 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 179152 : March 24, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JESSIE TONION Y BERASIS :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated 24 March 2008:

G.R. No. 179152 (People of the Philippines v. Jessie Tonion y Berasis).�This treats of the Motion for Reconsideration, dated 7 February 2008 filed by counsel for appellant Jessie Tonion y Berasis, of the Resolution dated 23 January 2008 which dismissed appellant's appeal for failure to sufficiently show reversible error in the assailed Decision and which affirmed the findings and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals. Appellant argues that under Article VIII, Sec. 5(2)(d) of the Constitution, it is this Court's mandatory duty to take cognizance of the appeal in cases where the penalty imposed is death or reclusion perpetua. Thus, it is asserted that the Court cannot simply treat his appeal like an ordinary petition for review on certiorari where the Court can exercise its discretion to deny or take cognizance of the same, for otherwise the spirit or rationale behind the restoration by the Constitutional Commission of the remedy of appeal (as distinguished form certiorari) as envisioned by the members of the Constitution would be undermined.

Before the promulgation of People v. Mateo,^[1] this Court assumed the direct appellate review over all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment under the auspices of Article VIII, Sec. 5(2)(d) of the Constitution. However, the Court deemed it wise and compelling to afford in these cases a review by the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated to this Court, particularly for a prior determination by the appellate court of the factual issues so as to minimize the possibility of an error of judgment. Thus, the rule allowing an intermediate review by the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated to this Court on automatic review was promulgated pursuant to the Court's rule-making power under Article VIII, Sec. 5(5). Should the Court of Appeals affirm the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or iife imprisonment, it must render judgment imposing the corresponding penalty as the circumstances warrant, refrain from entering judgment and elevate the entire records of the case to this Court for final disposition. It is then that the Court may exercise its "exclusive appellate jurisdiction" over such cases.^[2]

Accordingly, appellant's appeal underwent an intermediate review by the Court of Appeals which rendered judgment on 31 January 2007 dismissing the same and affirming in toto the trial court's decision finding him guilty as charged and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The case was elevated to this Court and on 23 January 2008, the Court found no reversible error in the decision of the Court of Appeals sufficient to overturn it. This was reached only after due consideration of the appeal and a careful review of the records which showed that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals in its review of the case are all in accordance with law and current jurisprudence.

We come to the same conclusion in resolving this motion for reconsideration. We find no reason to reject or modify the Court of Appeals' factual findings and legal conclusions in this case, which is why they should be as they had been in fact affirmed and adopted by this Court after considering the allegations, issues and arguments raised in the appeal. Consequently, the motion for reconsideration should be denied.

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to DENY the motion for reconsideration with FINALITY, no substantial argument having been adduced to warrant the reconsideration sought.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] G.R. No. 1476-78-87, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 640.

^[2] Id. at 653-654, 656.