Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 195376 (Sergio Raña v. People of the Philippines)  — For the Court's consideration are the following pleadings filed by petitioner: 1) Most Respectful Urgent Manifestation with Query dated 7 December 2011, 2) Very Urgent Manifestation and Motion dated 16 December 2011, and 3) Motion for Reconsideration Abundante Cautela dated 20 December 2011.

On 16 November 2011, the Court issued an unsigned Extended Resolution denying the Petition for Review, and finding no reversible error in the 20 October 2010 Decision, of the Court of Appeals (CA). The Court affirmed the findings of the CA and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) holding accused petitioner guilty of the crime of qualified theft. In his Very Urgent Manifestation and Motion, accused assails the validity of our Resolution for being unsigned.

We refer petitioner to the following jurisprudence which have long established the constitutionality of such unsigned Extended Resolutions, pursuant to the well-established rule that a Petition for Review is not a matter of right, but is discretionary upon the Court: 

The disposition in this case was arrived at after a careful and thorough deliberation of the facts of this case and all the matters pertaining thereto. The records of the case, in fact, show that all the pertinent issues raised by petitioner were passed upon and sufficiently addressed by the appellate court and this Court in their respective resolutions...suffice it to say that the Court is not duty-bound to issue decisions or resolutions signed by the justices all the time. It has ample discretion to formulate ponencias, extended resolutions or even minute resolutions issued by or upon its authority, depending on its evaluation of a case, as long as a legal basis exists.^[1] (Emphasis supplied.) 

When the Court decides to dismiss a: petition, it may do so in the form of a decision or a resolution. A decision, although one of dismissal may be opted because of the jurisprudential importance of the case or perhaps, while the judgment sought to be reviewed may be substantially correct, the facts and the law involved in the case call for further discussion, elaboration or emphasis for guidance of the bench and bar. 

The disposition of the petition may be in the form of a resolution, which may be signed or unsigned. Obviously, not in the level of a decision, a signed resolution dismissing or denying an unmeritorious petition is usually an extended one with statement of facts and the law. On the other hand, a minute resolution, as the terminology connotes, is issued for the prompt and quick dispatch of the action of the Court and is generally unsigned. It is promulgated through the Clerk of Court and does not require certification of the Chief Justice.^[2]

Section 6, Rule 11 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court^[3] guides the Court in issuing unsigned Extended Resolutions: 

SEC. 6. Preparation of minute resolutions and unsigned extended resolutions. - A minute resolution quoting an excerpt of the minutes of Court sessions' pertinent to a case shall be prepared by the court attorneys in the Office of the Clerk of Court or the Division Clerk of Court and personally reviewed, approved, and initialled by the Clerk of Court or the Division Clerk of Court before submission for final approval by the Chief Justice or the Division Chairperson. An unsigned extended resolution may be prepared by the Office of the Member-in-Charge or by the Office of the Clerk of Court or Division Clerk of Court, upon instructions of either the Chief Justice or the Division Chairperson, who shall approve the resolution. The Chief Justice and the Division Chairperson shall order the Clerk of Court or the Division Clerk of Court to release duly approved minute and unsigned extended resolutions. (Emphasis supplied.)

When the Court issues Resolutions which are unsigned, they are reached in consultation and concurred in by a majority of the justices, in fulfillment of the requirement in Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution. These Resolutions are acts of the Division, and are ultimately, acts of the Supreme Court. In releasing duly approved Resolutions, the Clerk of Court is acting under the authority, and upon the orders of the Court itself.

Section 6(a), Rule 13 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court governs the manner of adjudication of cases: 

Sec. 6. Manner of adjudication - The Court shall adjudicate cases as follows: 

(a) By decision, when the Court disposes of the case on its merits and its rulings have significant doctrinal values; resolve novel issues; or impact on the social, political, and economic life of the nation. The decision shall state clearly and distinctly, the facts and the law on which it is based. It shall bear the signatures of the Members who took part in the deliberation. 

(b) By signed resolution, when the Court comprehensively resolves the motion for reconsideration filed in the case or when a dissenting opinion is registered against such resolution. The signed resolution shall no longer discuss issues resolved in the decision and need not repeat the facts and the law stated in it. It shall also bear the signatures of the Members who took part in the deliberation. 

(c) By unsigned resolution when the Court disposes of the case on the merits, but its ruling is essentially meaningful only to the parties; has no significant doctrinal value; or is of minimal interest to the law profession, the academe, or the public. The resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. 

(d) By minute resolution x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

In his Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner would also have us revisit the RTC and CA's findings by raising purely factual arguments. Yet it is long-settled that this Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below. This is especially true where the trial court's factual findings are adopted and affirmed by the CA as in the present case. Factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal.^[4]

The prosecution was able to prove, and petitioner does admit, that he was the cashier of Colegio de San Juan de Letran. Further implicating Ernesto Chico does not absolve petitioner of his culpability in the crime, as discussed in our Resolution of 16 November 2011: 

There is no question that Chico participated in the fraud; he was discharged only because the court allowed him to turn witness for the state. The NBI's Legal Evaluation Division (LED), found as follows: "Raña, with the help and cooperation of Chico, appropriated the total amount of P225,769.00, which was part of the Colegio de San Juan de Letran's cash on hand account for the inclusive period from 1 April to 30 September 1989 which he had in his possession. To cover up the amount he appropriated for the month under reconciliation, he (Raña) included the cash on hand intended for the succeeding month." The trial court allowed the discharge of Chico on a sufficient showing that the anomalies could not have been discovered without him, and that his testimony was necessary to pin down the principal and real culprit, Raña. That the scheme was undertaken by both of them was alleged by the prosecution at the outset; yet again, this has no bearing whatsoever on the finding of guilt on the part of Raña. (Citations omitted.)

Petitioner next argues that the school administrators should have filed charges against the Treasurer, Bro. Nelson Taclobos, and the Accountant, Herminio Castro, since the NBI also found evidence of negligence on their part. This point is irrelevant to the clear finding of culpability on the part of petitioner. It is entirely within the authority of the prosecutor to decide which suspects should be charged, or for which particular individual probable cause is present. A finding of probable cause for the purpose of filing an Information rests solely on the sound discretion of the prosecuting fiscal,^[5] who is under no compulsion to file a particular criminal information where he is convinced that there is not enough evidence to support its averments.

There being no reversible error attributable to the appellate court, its findings are affirmed.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the instant motions are DENIED with FINALITY, there being NO SUBSTANTIAL ARGUMENT to warrant reconsideration. Let entry of judgment be made in due course. (Perlas-Bernabe, J., additional member vice Brion, J., per Special Order No. 1174 dated 9 January 2012)

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Diaz v. Republic, G.R. No. 181502, 2 February 2010, 611 SCRA 403.

^[2] Yale Land Development v. Caragao, G.R. No. 135244, 15 April 1999, 365 SCRA 443. See Separate Opinion of J. Kapunan. 

^[3] A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC. 

^[4] Catindig v. Vda. De Meneses, G.R. Nos. 165851 and 168875, 2 February 2011, 641 SCRA 350. 

^[5] San Miguel Corporation v. Bartolome Puzon, Jr., G.R. No. 167567, 22 September 2010.