Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 171343 (Fernando R. Dionisio v. People of the Philippines). - Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the Resolution^[1] dated August 11, 2005 and Resolution^[2] dated January 9, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Former Ninth Division, in CA-G.R. CR No. 29215, entitled People of the Philippines v. Fernando Dionisio alias "Tong-Tong," which denied the application for bail of petitioner Fernando R. Dionisio and his motion for reconsideration thereof.

Petitioner was charged with murder in an Information^[3]  dated July 11, 2003, in Criminal Case No. 1790-2003, alleging that on or about 9:45 p.m. of May 3, 2003, in Ricarte Norte, Diffun, Quirino, petitioner, with treachery, shot Barangay Captain Geronimo Bautista on different parts of his body using an illegally possessed firearm, thereby causing his instantaneous death. No bail was recommended. Thereafter, petitioner was arrested by virtue of an Alias Warrant of Arrest^[4] dated August 6, 2003, and was detained on September 22, 2003.^[5]

Upon arraignment on October 14, 2003, petitioner pleaded not guilty.^[6] During the pre-trial conference, the following were the issues raised, to wit: the culpability of the petitioner, the existence of treachery in the commission of the offense, and the flight of the petitioner and his refusal to undergo paraffin test.^[7] Whereupon, the trial on the merits ensued.

In a Decision^[8] dated March 14, 2005, the trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide, not murder as charged in the information, in view of the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.

In an Order^[9]  dated March 17, 2005, the trial court gave due course to petitioner's Notice of Appeal^[10] dated March 15, 2005.

In an Order^[11]  dated March 18, 2005, the trial court likewise gave due course to the prosecution's Notice of Appeal^[12]  dated March 18, 2005, which alleged that the trial court failed to appreciate the qualifying circumstances of treachery and use of illegally possessed firearm.

On April 13, 2005, petitioner filed an Application for Bail^[13] alleging that since he was convicted for homicide, not murder, the trial court changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable; that he did not suffer from any of the disqualifications for the grant of discretionary bail under Section 5, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure as he was not a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent nor has he committed a crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration (i.e., he had not at any point in time, escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, nor violated the conditions of his bail; he did not commit any offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon; the circumstances of petitioner's case did not indicate the probability of flight if released on bail as he was longing to be with his family and wanted to work so as to support them; and there was no risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal); and that he voluntarily surrendered which spared the government from the trouble and expense concomitant to his search and capture. Based on these circumstances, petitioner prayed that his Application for Bail be granted and that a reasonable amount of bail bond for his temporary liberty be fixed according to his financial standing.

In the Comment^[14] dated July 7, 2005, the prosecution, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), cited that petitioner's conviction for homicide by the trial court and that, on appeal, the probability that the CA may convict him of murder, as charged in the information, would disqualify him from being granted bail.

In a Resolution^[15]  dated August 11, 2005, the CA denied petitioner's Application for Bail on the grounds that his conviction implied that the evidence against him is strong and that he had not convincingly shown that he would not flee during the pendency of his appeal.

On September 14, 2005, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,^[16] but the CA denied the same in the Resolution^[17] dated January 9, 2006.

Hence, this present petition.

The present petition is related to the petition in G.R. No. 182218, entitled Fernando Dionisio v. People of the Philippines, which the Court denied in the Minute Resolution^[18] dated June 4, 2008, for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed CA Decision^[19]  dated September 28, 2007, and Resolution^[20] dated March 3, 2008, Thirteenth Division, in CA-G.R. CR No. 29215 (People of the Philippines v. Fernando Dionisio, alias Tong-Tong) to warrant the exercise by the Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision^[21] dated March 14, 2005 of the RTC, Branch 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino, finding petitioner guilty of the graver crime of murder.

In G.R. No. 182218, the Court, in a Minute Resolution^[22] dated June 4, 2008, denied petitioner's petition for review on certiorari. Likewise, in a Minute Resolution^[23]  dated September 8, 2008, the Court denied with finality his Motion for Reconsideration with Prayer to Refer the Decision of the Case to the Supreme Court En Banc^[24] dated July 28, 2008, as no substantial arguments have been adduced to warrant the reconsideration sought and, further, the Court En Banc is not an appellate court to which decisions or resolutions of a Division may be appealed, pursuant to this Court's Circular No. 2-89 [3J. Per Entry of Judgment^[25] on October 28, 2008, the Chief of the Judicial Records Office certified that the Minute Resolution dated June 4, 2008, had become final and executory and, thus, is recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment.

The Court, in the Minute Resolution^[26]  dated January 14, 2009, expunged from the records of the case the petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration with Prayer to Treat the Petition as an Automatic Appeal, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. In a Minute Resolution^[27] dated November 17, 2010, the Court resolved to consolidate G.R. No. 182218 with the present G.R. No. 171343 as they involve the same parties and assail the same CA decision.

In view of the supervening event wherein the CA, in CA-G.R. CR No. 29215, modified the RTC Decision dated March 14, 2005, which convicted petitioner for the crime of homicide, and held petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the graver crime of murder, a non-bailable offense, which this Court affirmed in G.R. No. 182218, with Entry of Judgment on October 28, 2008, the petitioner's present petition assailing the CA's Resolutions dated August 11, 2005 and January 9, 2006, which denied his Application for Bail, is rendered moot.

WHEREFORE, in view of the disposition of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 29215, finding petitioner Fernando R. Dionisio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the graver crime of murder, a non-bailable offense, which this Court affirmed in G.R. No. 182218, with Entry of Judgment on October 28, 2008, the petitioner's petition questioning the denial by the Court of Appeals of his Application for Bail, in the Resolutions dated August 11, 2005 and January 9, 2006, respectively, is DENIED for being moot. 

SO ORDERED.

Nachura, J., on official leave.
Velasco, Jr., J., designated additional member, per Special Order No. 933, January 24, 2011.

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
  Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Amelita G. Tolentino, concurring, rollo, pp. 28-33.

^[2] Id. at 34. 

^[3] Records, p. 20. 

^[4] Id. at 28. 

^[5] Id. at 29-31. 

^[6] Id. at 42. 

^[7] Id. at 53. 

^[8] Id. at 191-194. 

^[9] Id. at 197. 

^[10] Id. at 196. 

^[11] Id. at 199. 

^[12] Id. at 198. 

^[13] CA rollo, pp. 30-33. 

^[14] Id. at 70-86. 

^[15] Supra note 1. 

^[16] CA rollo, pp. 96-105. 

^[17] Supra note 2. 

^[18] Rollo (G.R. No. 182218), pp. 88-89. 

^[19] Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Vicente S.E. Veloso, concurring; id. at 49-63. 

^[20] Id. at 65. 

^[21] Supra note 8. 

^[22] Supra note 18. 

^[23] Rollo (G.R. No. 182218), p. 115. 

^[24] Id. at 90-113. 

^[25] Id. at 117. 

^[26] Id. at 116. 

^[27] Id. at 268-269.