January 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. Nos. 193422-24 : January 18, 2012]
RUBEN B. ECLEO, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
"G.R. Nos. 193422-24 - (Ruben B. Ecleo, Jr. v. People of the Philippines). - On October 13, 2006, the Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioner of three counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 involving the illegal release and use of public funds he committed when he was the Municipal Mayor of San Jose, Surigao del Norte.
On October 26, 2006, he filed a verified motion for reconsideration, but the Sandiganbayan denied the motion on June 6, 2008, and he received a copy of the denial on June 17, 2008.
On June 30, 2008, he filed a motion for extension of time to file petition for review in this Court. On July 28, 2008, however, he informed the Court through a manifestation and motion that he would not anymore be filing the petition for review.
On October 26, 2008, he presented a verified motion for new trial in the Sandiganbayan. However, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion for new trial on February 17, 2009. After receiving the resolution of denial on March 9, 2009, he sought reconsideration on March 16, 2009. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion for reconsideration on May 7, 2009. He received a copy of the denial on June 2, 2009.
Nevertheless, on June 22, 2009, he brought a second motion for reconsideration with leave of court to the Sandiganbayan, which, yet again, denied his motion on August 6, 2009. He received a copy of the denial on August 20, 2009.
On September 17, 2009, he assailed the denial of his second motion for reconsideration by petition for certiorari in this Court, which dismissed the petition on November 16, 2009 for his failure to show any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan. His motion for reconsideration was later denied.
On September 8, 2010, he appealed the October 13, 2006 decision of the Sandiganbayan through a petition for review on certiorari. On October 18, 2010, the Court denied the petition for being filed out of time, and for failing to show any reversible error that warranted the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction. He received the denial on November 24, 2010.
On December 9, 2010, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, raising the following grounds, namely: (a) that the petition was not entertained at all; (b) that substantial justice called for the petition to be entertained; and (c) that the Arias doctrine applied to his case, and the merits of the case called for acquittal.
We deny the motion for reconsideration.
Section 2 of Rule 45 provides that a petition for review on certiorari shall be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or from the denial of a motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of judgment.
The records show that the petitioner filed the petition for review on certiorari only on September 8, 2010, which was more than two years from and after June 17, 2008, the date of his receipt of the denial of his motion for reconsideration filed vis-a-vis the October 13, 2006 decision. Such filing was already way beyond the reglementary period for appeal.
Although the petitioner sought from the Court an extension of the time to appeal by petition for review on June 30, 2008, he subsequently informed the Court on July 28, 2008 that he was no longer filing the petition for review. Under such circumstances, the adverse decision promulgated on October 13, 2006 attained finality, rendering the Court bereft of the jurisdiction to review the decision. cralaw
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is denied with finality. No further pleadings shall be entertained. Let entry of judgment issue.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court