Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > June 2012 Resolutions > [UDK-14595 : June 18, 2012] LOLITO BORJA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ELIZABETH L. URBANO.:




SECOND DIVISION

[UDK-14595 : June 18, 2012]

LOLITO BORJA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ELIZABETH L. URBANO.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 June 2012 which reads as follows:cralaw

UDK-14595 (Lolito Borja v. People of the Philippines and Elizabeth L. Urbano). - Before the Court is a Petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the 24 May 2011 and 28 September 2011 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA).[1] The present Petition stems from the criminal case filed against petitioner Lolito Borja who, together with his brothers Nanito (a.k.a. Nonito) and Rolando (a.k.a. Dodong), was charged with the killing of Arnulfo Urbano.

Facts 

Lolito, Nanito and Rolando, and some of their neighbors, were still having a drinking session at their front yard up until the early morning of 25 April 2000, the day of the barangay fiesta in Barangay Linao, Ormoc City. About 1 a.m., Arnulfo was passing by the house of the Borjas when he decided to join them for drinks and karaoke. After a while of merriments, Arnulfo left his seat and joined a group of ladies, whom he purportedly began molesting. Thus, the wife of Lolito asked him to bring Arnulfo back to the men's group. As Lolito held the hand of Arnulfo to fetch him, the latter allegedly fell on his knees. Arnulfo quickly stood up and then immediately left the house.

After a few minutes, Arnulfo, with his son-in-law Roberto[2] Sumaljag, returned to the front yard of the Borjas with a bolo. Arnulfo then went straight to Lolito and hacked him. Lolito parried the attacks with the electric guitar he was holding then ran away, but Arnulfo chased and continued striking him. Nanito dashed to the aid of Lolito and tried to stop Arnulfo, who switched his ire to Nanito and began assaulting him.

It was what transpired after Nanito joined in the commotion that is in dispute. According to prosecution eyewitness Amelito Biyo, he afterwards saw Lolito smack Arnulfo with the guitar, causing the latter to drop the bolo to the ground. Arnulfo was then struck by Nanito with a bolo and then by Lolito with a knife. Rolando subsequently joined his elder brothers and stabbed Arnulfo from behind with a knife. After the brothers hacked and stabbed Arnulfo, he fell to the ground. The witness next saw the brothers carry the body of Arnulfo to a nearby gabi plantation. They left his body in the field and thereafter proceeded back to their house.

On the other hand, defense eyewitness Isabelo Estrera narrates that when Rolando saw his elder brothers already bleeding and still being attacked, he immediately rushed to the scene and pulled Arnulfo away from his brothers. Armed, Rolando engaged Arnulfo and fought with him. After about a minute, they broke up their skirmish and then eventually hurried away from the scene. The defense witnesses, however, did not see what happened following the incident. They were not able to testify as to how or what caused the death of Arnulfo. For their part, accused Lolito and Nanito both denied killing Arnulfo. According to them, they were separately and immediately spirited away by their relatives from the scene after the encounter between Rolando and Arnulfo. They also claimed that they did not witness the events that occurred thereafter.

The Ormoc City Regional Trial Court (RTC)[3] found the Borjas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. Considering, however, the factual circumstances surrounding the incident, the trial court accorded them the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. Lolito and Nanito were therefore sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, up to six (6) years of prision correccional, as maximum. Rolando was not arraigned, as he was - and remains - at large.

While Nanito availed himself of the benefits of probation,[4] Lolito appealed the RTC Decision to the CA. On 14 December 2007, his counsel received a Notice to file an appellant's brief, but it was only on 10 September 2008, or almost eight (8) months after the last day of filing, when the latter filed it. According to the counsel, his temporary office staff failed to report to him the receipt of the CA's Notice. He also failed to serve a copy of the brief upon the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Because of these technical infirmities, the CA dismissed the appeal through the assailed Resolutions dated 24 May 2011 and 28 September 2011.

Petitioner received a copy of the 28 September 2011 CA Resolution on 18 October 2011. His counsel was again late in filing the pleading for his client. The instant Petition was posted on 3 November 2011, or 16 days after notice of the assailed Resolution.

Issue 

The sole issue before this Court is whether or not the CA committed reversible error when it dismissed the appeal of petitioner Lolito.

Ruling 

We find no reversible error in the CA's dismissal of Lolito's appeal for having filed his appellant's brief eight (8) months after the last day of filing. The Rules of Court is clear on the period when an appellant's brief must be filed with the CA: 

SEC. 7. Appellant's brief. - It shall be the duty of the appellant to file with the court, within forty-five (45) days from receipt of the notice of the clerk that all the evidence, oral and documentary, are attached to the record, seven (7) copies of his legibly typewritten, mimeographed or printed brief, with proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellee. (10a, R46) (Emphasis supplied.)

An extension of time for filing briefs is not permitted, unless there is a good and sufficient cause, and only if the motion is filed before the expiration of the time sought to be extended.[5] Consequently, Section 1(e), Rule 50 thereof, expressly states that the CA may dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to file the brief within the prescribed period. We reiterate that the appellate court places great reliance on the briefs and memoranda of the parties, since it is not in a position to hear firsthand the testimony of the parties.[6] Thus, we have held that an appeal is deemed abandoned where an accused fails to properly prosecute it or does some act inconsistent with its prosecution.[7] The law cannot protect parties who sleep on their rights.[8] Failure to file the appellant's brief within the prescriptive period has the effect of dismissing the appeal.

In any event, even if we relax the rules in the interest of substantial justice, we find no sufficient reason to overturn the ruling of the RTC. In People v. Seguis, we have ruled that "the defense of alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters that the accused-appellants were at the scene of the incident and were the victim's assailants and perpetrators of the crime."[9] Furthermore, "the defense of alibi is an issue of fact that hinges on credibility, the relative weight of which the trial court assigns to the testimony of the witnesses."[10] 

According to the trial court,[11] the positive and straightforward testimony of the prosecution witness was more in line with the truth and with human experience. On the other hand, it noted that the defense witnesses could not give straightforward testimonies on the events that transpired during the incident. It also observed that the eyewitness of the defense could not ascertain who between the victim and the accused had given and received the hacking and stabbing blows. It then stated that the evasive attitude of the alleged eyewitness left a fatal crack on his credibility. The trial court thus found that the denial and alibi of the petitioner, which was unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, were merely self-serving evidence that could not be given greater weight than the declaration of a credible witness who testified on the affirmative matters.

It is a "time-tested doctrine that a trial court's assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight - even conclusive and binding on this Court, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence."[12] Here, the RTC, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness Amelito Biyo, was convinced of his credibility and trustworthiness. Its findings must thus be accepted, especially since a careful perusal of the records does not show that the rejection of the defense of alibi was inconsistent with the evidence presented to the trial court.[13]cralaw

WHEREFORE, we DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari of accused-appellant Lolito Borja.

Very truly yours, 

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

Endnotes:


[1] Both Resolutions in CA-G.R. CEB-CR. No. 0072 were penned by Edgardo L. delos Santos and concurred in by Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes.

[2] The RTC Decision sometimes referred to Roberto Sumaljag as "Alberto." 

[3] The Decision in Crim. Case No. 5896-0 was penned by Judge Francisco C. Gedorio, Jr. 

[4] Application for Probation of Nanito Borja, CA rollo, p. 432. 

[5] RULES OF COURT, Rule 44, Sec. 12. 

[6] Torres v. Orden, 386 Phil. 246 (2000). 

[7] Vitto v. Court of Appeals, 452 Phil. 381 (2003) (citing People v. Balanag, G.R. No. 103225, 15 September 1994, 236 SCRA 474). 

[8] Vitto v. Court of Appeals, supra (citing Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals, 399 Phil. 442 (2000)). 

[9] People v. Seguis, G.R. No. 135034, 18 January 2001, 349 SCRA 547, 562 (citing People v. Abdul, 310 SCRA 246 (1999)). 

[10] People v. Apa-ap, G.R. No. 110993, 17 August 1994, 235 SCRA 468, 474-475. 

[11] RTC Decision at 12-13 (People v. Borja, Crim. Case No. 5896-0, 1 April 2005), CA rollo, pp. 430-431. 

[12] People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 109660, 1 July 1997, 275 SCRA 19, 28-29. 

[13] See People v. Apa-ap, supra note 10.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • [A.C. No. 7565 : June 13, 2012] MILA C. ARCHE v. ATTY. SOFRONIO CLAVECILLA, JR.

  • [G.R. No. 195193 : June 13, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS JUANITO METRE, JR. A.K.A. "LUCIO", APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 190316 : June 13, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ZALDY C. RAFER @ SALVADOR RAFER, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 195427 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF APPELLEE, VERSUS REMEDIOS CAPULE Y MADAYAG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 181427 : June 13, 2012] JOMIL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. SPOUSES GLORIA AND JULIAN C. CARGULLO

  • [G.R. No. 171243 : June 13, 2012] SPOUSES ISAGANI CASTRO AND DIOSDADA CASTRO v. CONCORDIA BARTOLOME AND VICTORIA BARTOLOME

  • [G.R. No. 195775 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARITES ROBLES Y LARIOS

  • [G.R. No. 195526 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLANDO ALBURO AND MICHAEL CARVAJAL ACCUSED; ROLANDO ALBURO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 199206 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. OMAR WANDAY Y AMPASO

  • [G.R. No. 192548 : June 13, 2012] ANTONIO T. CHU v. SPOUSES ALFRED & LAUREANA ESTOE, FELIX GRAVIDEZ, ALFREDO GRAVIDEZ, ANGELO VIOLENA, ARACELI SORIA AND FRANCISCO CALONGE

  • [G.R. No. 175228 : June 13, 2012] ALFREDO M. ABIERTAS v. JOSE C. LATORRE

  • [G.R. No. 172899 : June 13, 2012] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. HEIRS OF ZACARIAS ALICANDO, REPRESENTED BY BERNARDINA ALICANDO, ADMINISTRATOR

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2870 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3235-P) : June 13, 2012] PRESTIDIO HAIR SALON CO., REPRESENTED BY MARITA L. ESTABALAYA v. EFREN P. LUNA, SHERIFF III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 37, QUEZON CITY.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-12-2315 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3309-RTJ) : June 13, 2012] ALAN F. PAGUIA v. JUDGE LEOPOLDO MARIO P. LEGAZPI, PRESIDING JUDGE, ALEXANDER A. RIVERA, CLERK OF COURT, AND MA. THERESA V. RODRIGUEZ, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 49, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY.

  • [G.R. No. 199398 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GEORGE VELO Y BALBAS

  • [G.R. No. 199220 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ISMAIL DALAMBAN MAGDATU

  • [G.R. No. 175016 : June 13, 2012] BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • [G.R. No. 189103 : June 13, 2012] PRIMITIVO R. DOMINGO, JR., TERESA D. SANDERS, DANILO R. DOMINGO, IRENEO R. DOMINGO, ROSARIO DOMINGO-LACSON, LORETA DOMINGO-PANIS, MARY ANN R. DOMINGO, AMADOR R. DOMINGO, LYDIA T. DOMINGO, MICHELLE D. DETITA, SERGIO T. DOMINGO, JR. AND JENNILYN T. DOMINGO v. ARNULFO MANZON, AMELIA MANZON-PANGANIBAN, ORLANDO MANZON, ADORACION MANZON-PESTANO, MILAGROS MANZON-TOLENTINO, RIZALINA MANZON-MARZAN, QUIRINO MANZON, FELICISIMA MANZON-SANTIAGO AND BENITA MANZON-TINIO

  • [G.R. No. 181609 : June 13, 2012] ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • [G.R. No. 201412 : June 13, 2012] HENRY DEMANDACO v. FRAILENE A. DEMANDACO AND MELBA D. LEGASA

  • [G.R. No. 181609 : June 13, 2012] ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • [G.R. No. 201412 : June 13, 2012] HENRY DEMANDACO v. FRAILENE A. DEMANDACO AND MELBA D. LEGASA

  • [G.R. No. 198790 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JONIE ORCALES Y LANAGA

  • [G.R. No. 166461 : June 13, 2012] HEIRS OF LORENZO AND CARMEN VIDAD AND AGVID CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 188850 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUANITO MONTES Y CABONILAS

  • [G.R. No. 182524 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALFREDO PINEDA Y BORJA

  • [G.R. No. 196008 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MOHAMAD IBRAHIM Y MALIGA

  • [G.R. No. 194462 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILFREDO FAUSTINO Y MENDOZA

  • [G.R. No. 198017 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL RAMOS Y CARBONEL ALIAS "ENGOL"

  • [G.R. No. 199101 : June 13, 2012] MA. REGINA DELARMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES MERLYN S. UY AND GOHOC P. UY

  • [G.R. No. 189947 : June 13, 2012] MANILA PAVILION HOTEL, OWNED AND OPERATED BY ACESITE (PHILS.) HOTEL CORPORATION V. HENRY DELADA

  • [G.R. No. 200569 : June 13, 2012] PACIFICO MENDIGO Y GALLENO, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 199068 : June 13, 2012] LAUREANA P. BORRES v. SISTER ANGELINA M. FERNANDO

  • [G.R. No. 194070 : June 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BENJAMIN GALICIA Y ROBLAS

  • [G.R. No. 188726 : June 18, 2012] CRESENCIO C. MILLA v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MARKET PURSUITS, INC. REPRESENTED BY CARLO V. LOPEZ.

  • [G.R. No. 192085 : June 18, 2012] CARIDAD SEGARRA SAZON v. LETECIA VASQUEZ-MENANCIO, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT EDGAR S. SEGARRA.

  • [UDK-14595 : June 18, 2012] LOLITO BORJA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ELIZABETH L. URBANO.

  • [G.R. No. 196971 : June 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LOURDES AGAPOR Y AZUELA, A.K.A. "ODETTE".

  • [G.R. No. 196985 : June 18, 2012] ALEXANDER G. CASTRO, PETITIONER, VERSUS GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) AND HONORABLE ROBERT VERGARA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF GSIS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 201183 : June 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIANO BERSABE

  • [A.C. No. 8178 : June 18, 2012] NAPOLEON CHIU v. ATTY. ALAN A. LEYNES

  • [A.M. No. 11-8-151-RTC : June 19, 2012] RE: BURNING OF THE HALL OF JUSTICE, IPIL, ZAMBOANGA SIBUGAY

  • [A.M. No. 14265-Ret. : June 19, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE ERNESTO D. MERCADO, RTC, BRANCH 3, BATANGAS CITY; JUDGE SIMON D. ENCINAS, RTC, BRANCH 51, SORSOGON CITY; JUDGE PORFIRIO A. PARIAN, RTC, BRANCH 33, ILOILO CITY; JUDGE SANTIAGO F. BAUTISTA, JR., MTCC, SAN JOSE CITY, NUEVA ECIJA; AND JUDGE PEDRO R. SUYAT, MCTC, NATIVIDAD, PANGASINAN

  • [A.M. No. P-04-1924 : June 19, 2012] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. JUSTAFINA HOPE T. LAYA, ET AL; FLAVIANO D. BALGOS, JR., ET AL. VS. JUSTAFINA HOPE T. LAYA, ET AL.

  • [A.M. No. 14297- Ret. : June 19, 2012] RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF MRS. NORA L. HERRERA, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE LATE HON. MANUEL C. HERRERA, FORMER ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • [A.C. No. 3375 : June 20, 2012] FEDENCIO BALICOLON v. ATTY. LAWRENCE CORDOVA

  • [G.R. No. 170046 : June 20, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAXIMO A. BORJE, JR., ET AL.

  • [A.C. No. 6998 : June 20, 2012] CLARITA O. SANTIANO v. ATTY. TEODULO PUNZALAN.

  • [G.R. No. 192904 : June 20, 2012] ELADIA LIMBO v. ELIZABETH MYRNA AGRIPA-MANEGDEG, IN HER CAPACITY AS SURVIVING HEIR AND AS SUBSTITUTE FOR DECEASED SPS. MARCELO AGRIPA AND LYDIA AGRIPA.

  • [G.R. No. 201560 : June 20, 2012] DR. JOSE CESAR CABRERA v. AMECO CONTRACTORS RENTAL, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 200939 : June 25, 2012] SPOUSES CARMELO, JR. AND ELIZABETH AFRICA, PETITIONERS, VERSUS BANK OF COMMERCE, THE PURPORTED TRANSFEREE OF TRADERS ROYAL BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 6332 : June 26, 2012] RE: SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION DATED APRIL 28, 2003 IN G.R. NO. 145817 AND G.R. NO. 145822 (ATTY. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA, RESPONDENT)

  • [G.R. No. 139472 : June 26, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DELFIN S. RODRIGO

  • [A.M. No. 12-6-110-RTC : June 26, 2012] RE: REQUEST OF CLERK OF COURT CLARENCE G. CHERREGUINE, RTC, BRANCH 42, BALANGIGA, EASTERN SAMAR, TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL FOR HIS FATHER

  • [A.M. No. 12-5-89-RTC : June 26, 2012] RE: QUERY OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE JOCELYN SUNDIANG DILIG, RTC, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, AS TO WHO MAY RESOLVE THE PETITION FOR RENEWAL OF THE NOTARIAL COMMISSION OF ATTY. CONRADO B. LAGMAN AND THE OPPOSITION THERETO

  • [G.R. No. 196530 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISITO TULANG Y LLANITA, A.K.A "LOUIE"

  • [G.R. No. 175779 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VIRGINIA MENDOZA Y ARBO @ CRIS

  • [G.R. No. 181323 : June 27, 2012] LILIAN MANTO AND EMMANUEL FAUSTINA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 199493 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMIE ASPACIO Y MAYOLA

  • [G.R. No. 196490 : June 27, 2012] LEONARDO IGOT v. BANCO SAN JUAN

  • [G.R. No. 188778 : June 27, 2012] ANTONIO HERMANO v. OCTAVIO ALVAREZ, JR., LEONORA CASTRO-BATAC, GILBERTO C. CASTRO, JR., MANUEL C. CASTRO, CONSUELO CASTRO-CASTRO, JAKE CASTRO, MA. ELISA CASTRO-VILLANUEVA AND ROSELINO CASTRO

  • [G.R. No. 192817 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGELITO MALABANAN Y ANAHAN

  • [G.R. No. 185165 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE MACAWILI Y PALLER.

  • [G.R. No. 182210 : June 27, 2012] PAZ T. BERNARDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [G.R. No. 179902 : June 27, 2012] METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. RODOLFO PASCUAL, SR. & RODOLFO PASCUAL, JR.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-07-1687 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 99-830-MTJ) : June 27, 2012] DOMINGO B. PANTIG v. JUDGE PASCUALA CLEOFE G. CANLAS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT [MTC], SASMUAN, PAMPANGA.