ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 136504.November 14, 2001]
SUELTO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN et al.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentleman:
Quoted hereunder ,for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 14 2001.
G.R. No. 136504(Felix Lawrence Suelto vs. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines.)
On December 17, 1998, petitioner Felix Lawrence Suelto was convicted by the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Cases Nos. 1448, 1458-59, 1461, 1463, 1467-1468, 1470, 1474, 1476-1478, 1487-1489 and 1495.
On December 28, 1998, petitioner 1 Represented by Atty. Ray Moncada.filed with this Court a motion 2 Captioned as a "Petition for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review."for an extension of thirty (30) days from January 4, 1999 within which to file his petition for review on certiorari. The matter was docketed as G.R. No. 136504. In a Resolution dated February 8, 1999, the Third Division denied the motion "as it lacks verified statement as to the date of receipt by counsel for petitioner of the copies of the assailed decision/order and of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration thereof." 3 Rollo, p. 8.
On April 5, 1999, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated February 8, 1999. In his prayer, petitioner also asked that his petition for review on certiorari, allegedly filed on February 2, 1999, be admitted to afford him the same privilege accorded to his co-accused, Lindy TVS Enriquez and Manuel Diaz, with whom, he claims, he was similarly situated. 4 Petitioner attached copies of the following documents as annexes:
a. The Petition for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed by Atty. Ray Moncada for Manuel Diaz in G.R. No. 136505;
b. The Petition for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed by Atty. Moncada for Lindy TVS Enriquez in G.R. No. 136503;
c. The Resolution dated February 10, 1999 of the Second Division in G.R. No. 136505 which granted the motion for extension of time of Manuel Diaz ; and
d. The Resolution dated February 3, 1999 of the First Division in G.R. No. 136503 which granted the motion for extension of time of Lindy TVS Ennquez.
In a Resolution dated July 12, 1999, the Court reconsidered its resolution denying petitioner's motion for extension of time.
Subsequently, in a Resolution dated February 23, 2000, the Second Division held:
It appearing that petitioner failed to file the intended petition for review on certiorari within the prescribed period despite the resolution of July 12, 1999 granting his motion for reconsideration of the resolution of 08 February 1999 which denied his motion for extension of time to file said petition, the Court RESOLVES to INFORM the parties that no petition has been filed in this case and that the judgment sought to be reviewed has now become final and executory and to DECLARE this case CLOSED and TERMINATED. 5 Rollo, p. 29.
On May 5, 2000, petitioner 6 Represented by Attys. Myles Nicholas Bejar and Ray Moncada.filed a motion invoking his rights to equal protection and treatment of the law and to the application of a uniform standard of justice. 7 Rollo, pp. 30-35 and pp. 47-52.Petitioner asserted that he filed his intended petition on February 2, 1999, and implored the Court to acknowledge receipt of a consolidated petition for review on certiorari which he, Lindy TVS Enriquez, Manuel Diaz and Rufina Grefalde filed in G.R. No. 136502. Petitioner manifested that he previously filed a motion for extension of time without indicating any particular division. In his eager desire to have his case terminated at the soonest possible time, he filed a consolidated petition even before learning that his case was raffled to the Second Division. Petitioner contends that if his motion for extension of time was acknowledged and granted by the Court, even when it did not specify a particular division, there is no reason why the Court cannot acknowledge a consolidated petition filed under the same circumstances. Attached to the motion was a copy of the alleged consolidated petition filed in G.R. No. 136502. 8 Rollo, pp. 65-139. Identified as petitioners therein were Lindy TVS Enriquez, Manuel Diaz, Rufina Grefalde and Felix Lawrence Suelto, with Attys. Mikhail Lee L. Maxino, Ray Moncada, Manuel R. Arbon and Rose-Liza V. Eisma as counsels.Since the case had already been declared closed and terminated, 9 Pursuant to the Resolution dated February 23, 2000.petitioner's motion was merely noted by the Court in a Resolution dated July 10, 2000.
On October 2, 2000, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated July 10, 2000, reiterating that he and his three (3) co-accused filed a consolidated petition on February 2, 1999. Petitioner stated that since it was only the petition of Rufina Grefalde which was acknowledged as having been filed, petitioner, Lindy TVS Enriquez and Manuel Diaz filed their respective motions invoking their rights to equal protection of the law and to a uniform standard of justice. Petitioner submits that if the Third Division received the petition of Rufina Grefalde, then the Court also received his petition as the same was embodied in one document. Petitioner further maintains that he, Manuel Diaz and Rufina Grefalde were similarly situated, and that, as in the case of Manuel Diaz, his petition should be acknowledged and consolidated with G.R. No. 136502. In a Resolution dated December 13, 2000, the Court required respondents to comment on the aforesaid motion for reconsideration.
In the meantime, on December 15, 2000, the Third Division rendered the following judgment in G.R. Nos. 136502 and 136505:
WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the conviction of petitioner Rufina Grefalde is AFFIRMED, and petitioners Lindy Enriquez, F. Laurence Suelto, Jr. and Manuel Diaz are hereby ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED.
Said judgment reversed the conviction of petitioner herein in Criminal Cases Nos.
1448, 1458-1459, 1461, 1463, 1467-1468, 1470, 1474, 1476-1478, 1487-1489 and 1495-1496. Upon verification from the Judicial Records Office, it appears that partial entry of judgment was made for petitioner, Lindy TVS Enriquez and Manuel Diaz on December 15, 2000.
In its comment dated February 16, 2001, 10 Erroneously captioned as "Comment (On the Motion to Invoke the Right to Equal Protection and -Treatment of the Law and Right to the Application of a Uniform Standard of Justice)."the Office of the Solicitor General informed the Court that, in the interest of substantial justice, it posed no objection to the motion for reconsideration of petitioner. On the other hand, in its comment dated March 19, 2001, the Special Prosecutor, prayed for the dismissal of the case, explaining that:
xxx������ xxx������ xxx
Counsel for the petitioners should have filed a motion to consolidate G.R. Nos. 136502, 136503, 136504 and 136505. Instead of doing so, counsel for petitioners filed in G.R. No. 136502 a petition for review on certiorari and included in the caption thereof the four (4) accused instead of only accused Rufina Grefalde.
With the Decision dated December 15, 2000 rendered by the Third Division, the order of the Second Division for respondent Office of the Special Prosecutor to comment on the motion for reconsideration of petitioner to be given the same treatment as his co-accused Rufina Grefalde has been rendered moot.
xxx������ xxx������ xxx
Considering that the reliefs which petitioner seeks to ultimately attain in his motion for reconsideration (i.e., reinstatement of his case and a review of his conviction in Criminal Cases Nos. 1448, 1458-59, 1461, 1463, 1467-1468, 1470, 1474, 1476-1478, 1487-1489 and 1495) have been rendered moot by the decision of the Third Division in G.R. Nos. 136502 and 136505, there is no more reason to act on the said motion for reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DEEMED MOOT AND ACADEMIC in light of his acquittal in Criminal Cases Nos. 1448, 1458-59, 1461, 1463, 1467-1468, 1470, 1474, 1476-1478, 1487-1489 and 1495 pursuant to the Decision dated December 15, 2000 of the Third Division in G.R. Nos. 136502 and 136505.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
