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