[ G.R. No. 128536. June 28, 2000]

P/INSP. ROQUE GALANG vs. CA

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 28 2000.

G.R. No. 128536 (P/Insp. Roque Galang vs. Court of Appeals.)

On January 31, 2000, the Court promulgated a decision in the above-entitled case finding accused P/Insp. Roque G. Galang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum and to indemnify the heirs of the victim Carlos Oro in the amount of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos, and to pay the costs.

On March 9, 2000 accused Galang moved to reconsider the afore-cited decision, which the Court denied with finality on April 5, 2000.1 Rollo, p. 141.

On May 8, 2000, accused Galang filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 82, Romblon a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Accused alleged that he discovered this new piece of evidence only after trial and after the case had gone up to the Supreme Court. On May 24, 2000, he filed a manifestation and motion before this Court praying that the entry of judgment be held in abeyance pending the resolution by the trial court of his motion for new trial.

The trial court can not entertain a motion for new trial of a judgment of conviction rendered by the Supreme Court.2 Cf. U.S. vs. Samio, 3 Phil. 691 [1904]. When accused perfected his appeal to this Court, the entire case is elevated herein and the court a quo has been divested of jurisdiction to allow new trial.3 U.S. vs. Estefa, 86 Phil. 104 [1950]; Evaristo vs. Lastrilla, 110 Phil. 181 [1960].

In fact, however, the Court has decided the case on the merits and petitioner's motion for reconsideration has been denied with finality. The denial signifies that the grounds relied upon have been found, upon due deliberation, to be without merit. It means not only that the grounds relied upon are lacking in merit but also that any other ground, not so raised, is deemed waived and may no longer be set up in a subsequent motion or application to overturn the judgment; and this is true, whatever may be the title given to such subsequent motion or application, whether it be "second motion for reconsideration," "motion for clarification," "plea for due process," "prayer for a second look," "motion to defer or set aside entry of judgment," "motion to refer case to Court en banc,"4 Ortigas and Company limited Partnership vs. Velasco, 254 SCRA 234, 243 [1996]. or, as in this case, motion for new trial.

The modifier, "final," or "with finality," serves to emphasize the import and effect of the denial of the motion for reconsideration, that the court will entertain and consider no further arguments or submissions from the parties respecting its correctness; that in the Court's considered view, nothing more is left to be discussed, clarified or done in the case, all issues raised having been passed upon and definitely resolved, and any other which could have been raised having been waived and no longer available as ground for a second motion. A denial with finality stresses that the case is considered closed.5 Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership vs. Velasco, supra, p. 244 [1996].

Petitioner received notice of the judgment of conviction promulgated on January 31, 2000, on February 23, 2000. On May 09, 2000, he filed a motion for reconsideration. This was the last day for filing as it was the 15th day following his receipt of the decision. On April 05, 2000, the Court denied with finality the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner received notice of this resolution on April 23, 2000. Hence, the judgment of conviction become final on April 24, 2000, on which date entry of judgment must be made.6 Rule 36, Section 2, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

A motion for new trial may be filed with the Supreme Court at any time before the judgment of the appellate court convicting the accused becomes final.7 Rule 124, Section 14, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. After entry of final judgment of the Supreme Court, no court, not even the Supreme Court, may entertain a motion for new trial.8 Cf. Diaz vs. People, 68 Phil. 717 [1939]; U.S. vs. Ballad 35 Phil. 14 [1916].

Accused has been given more than his day in court to vindicate his rights of defense. He can not be allowed to stave off the finality of a judgment by resorting to ingenious tactics intended to cause delay. All litigation must come to an end at some point, in accordance with established rules of procedure and jurisprudence.9 Legarda vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 642 [1997]; Agustin vs. Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 457 [1997]; Johnson & Johnson vs. Court of Appeals, 262, 298, 309-312, 313 [1996].

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES petitioner's motion to hold in abeyance entry of judgment due to the filing of his motion for new trial before the trial court which has no jurisdiction to entertain such motion, and orders the Regional Trial Court, Romblon, Branch 82, Odiongan, to desist from hearing or otherwise resolving the motion for new trial filed by accused P/Insp. Roque G. Galang.

The Regional Trial Court, Romblon, Branch 82, Odiongan, shall issue a warrant for the arrest of petitioner, and inform the Supreme Court of its implementation. The Court also orders the Chief, Philippine National Police to surrender P/Insp. Roque G. Galang to the Director, Bureau of Corrections for service of sentence.

Let entry of judgment be made in due course and copies of this resolution be given to the Chief, Philippine National Police, Provincial Director, PNP Romblon Provincial Police Office, Odiongan, Romblon, the Provincial Jail Warden, Provincial Jail, Odiongan, Romblon, and the Director, Bureau of Corrections, National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

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