ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 134105. February 22, 1999]

MIRRIAM ARRIBAS vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 22, 1999.

G.R. No. 134101 (Mirriam Arribas vs. People of the Philippines.)

In a resolution dated September 2, 1998, the Court resolved to dismiss the instant petition for review on certiorari for the petitioner's failure to comply with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure which requires a written explanation why service or filing of pleadings was not done personally.

In the motion for reconsideration filed with this Court on November 4, 1998, the petitioner asks for the Court's consideration of the dismissal citing his inadvertence in failing to explain why personal service was not made. At the same time, petitioner attached as annexes the return cards, as proof that the Office of the Solicitor General and the private complainant have received copies of the petition.

The Court however finds that petitioner's non-compliance is not justified by the any compelling reasons.

Nonetheless, after a careful perusal of the petition and the annexes, the Court does not find any merit in the instant petition. The Court does not find any reversible error on the part of the respondent Court of Appeals.

Petitioner seeks a reversal of her conviction for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. In essence, the petitioner insists that the loans for which the questioned checks were issued have already been extinguished. Petitioner alleges that the Court of Appeals committed error in sustaining the trial court's findings that the receipt evidencing payment of the loan is devoid of veracity and worth. Such issue is substantially factual in nature, and it is a well-settled doctrine that questions of fact may not be the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This mode of appeal is generally limited only to questions of law which must be distinctly set forth in the petition, subject only to a few well-defined exceptions not availing in the case at bench. (Inland Trailways v. CA, 255 SCRA 178 [1996])

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court resolved to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration with finality.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE