December 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > December 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 184337 : December 17, 2008] HEIRS OF FEDERICO C. DELGADO AND ANNALISA PESICO, PETITIONERS, - VERSUS- LUISITO Q. GONZALEZ AND ANTONIO T, BUENAFLOR, RESPONDENTS AND G.R. NO. 184507 -ACTING SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AGNES VST DEVANADERA, HEIRS OF FEDERICO C. DELGADO AND ANNALISA D. PESICO, PETITIONERS, - VERSUS - LUISITO Q. GONZALEZ AND ANTONIO T. BUENAFLOR, RESPONDENTS :
[G.R. No. 184337 : December 17, 2008]
HEIRS OF FEDERICO C. DELGADO AND ANNALISA PESICO, PETITIONERS, - VERSUS- LUISITO Q. GONZALEZ AND ANTONIO T, BUENAFLOR, RESPONDENTS AND G.R. NO. 184507 -ACTING SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AGNES VST DEVANADERA, HEIRS OF FEDERICO C. DELGADO AND ANNALISA D. PESICO, PETITIONERS, - VERSUS - LUISITO Q. GONZALEZ AND ANTONIO T. BUENAFLOR, RESPONDENTS
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated 17 December 2008
G.R. No. 184337 - HEIRS OF FEDERICO C. DELGADO and ANNALISA PESICO, Petitioners, - versus- LUISITO Q. GONZALEZ and ANTONIO T, BUENAFLOR, Respondents and G.R. No. 184507 - ACTING SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AGNES VST DEVANADERA, HEIRS OF FEDERICO C. DELGADO and ANNALISA D. PESICO,' Petitioners, - versus - LUISITO Q. GONZALEZ and ANTONIO T. BUENAFLOR, Respondents.
Before us is a "Motion for the Release (On Bond, If Required)" filed by respondents Luisito Q. Gonzalez (Gonzalez) and Antonio T. Buenaflor (Buenaflor) in connection with a Petition for Review dated 18 September 2008 filed with this Court by petitioners Heirs of Federico C. Delgado and Annalisa D. Pesico (petitioners) and docketed as G.R. No. 184337.
This motion is in the nature of an application for bail which can only be filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 32, where the case for murder against respondents is pending. However, the RTC suspended its proceedings on the murder case to await the outcome of this Petition for Review, precluding respondents from seeking bail before the RTC, Gonzalez is presently detained at the National Bureau of Investigation jail while Buenaflor is detained at iJbe Manila City Jail.[1]
On 11 March 2007, the police found the dead body of Federico C. Delgado (Delgado) at his residence in Mayflower Building, 2515 Leon Guinto, Malate, Manila. The police was alerted by Annalisa D. Pesico (Pesico), who allegedly was present at the commission of the crime and was likewise injured in the incident,[2]
On 1 June 2007, the Manila Police Department (MPD) filed a complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila, accusing respondents with the murder of Delgado and frustrated murder of Pesico. At petitioners' request, the case was transferred to the Department of Justice for preliminary investigation.[3]
Acting City Prosecutor of Manila Cielitolindo A. Luyun (Investigating Prosecutor) conducted the preliminary investigation and evaluated the evidence submitted by the MPD, as well as respondents' Counter-Affidavits, corroborating affidavits of 29 witnesses, and supporting documentary evidence. In a Resolution dated 10 September 2007, 'the Investigating Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause that respondents committed the crimes of murder and frustrated murder.[4]
On 18 September 2007, petitioners filed a Petition for Review with the Secretary of Justice. On 15 October 2007, then Acting Secretary of Justice Agnes VST Devanadera (Acting Secretary Devanadera.) reversed the finding of the Investigating Prosecutor and directed the filing of separate informations for murder and less serious physical injuries against respondents.[5]
On 18 October 2007, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by Acting Secretary Devanadera in a Resolution dated 26 October 2007.[6]
On. 5 November 2007, the corresponding Informations were filed. The charge for the crime of murder was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 32, docketed as Criminal Case No. 07-257487. The charge of less serious physical injuries was filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9, docketed as Criminal Case No. 441878.[7]
Thereafter, respondents filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 101196, assailing the Resolutions of Acting Secretary Devanadera dated 15 October 2007 and 26 October 2007.[8]
On 18 March 2008, the Court of Appeals, in its Original Decision, dismissed the petition.. Respondents then filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 27 March 2008.[9]
Meanwhile, on 3 July 2008, die RTC ordered that warrants of arrest be issued, against respondents.[10] On 16 and 21 July 2008, Gonzalez and Buenaflor, respectively, surrendered voluntarily to the police.[11] On 28 July 2008, respondents Hied with the RTC a Motion for Reconsideration (of the Order dated 3 July 2008).
After the oral arguments on 17 July 2008 on respondents' motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals issued an Amended Decision dated 29 August 2008. In the Amended Decision, the Court of Appeals granted the Motion for Reconsideration and ordered that the Informations charging petitioners with Murder and Less Serious Physical Injuries be quashed and dismissed.[12] The Solicitor General, who is now Agnes VST Devanadera, did not appeal the appellate court's Amended Decision which reversed her Resolutions of 15 October 2007 and 26 October 2007 when she was Acting Secretary of Justice.
On 10 September 2008, respondents filed with the Court of Appeals an Urgent Motion to Order the Amended Decision dated 29 August 2008 as Immediately Executory.[13]
On 18 September 2008, petitioners filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 before this Court.[14]
On 7 October 2008, the RTC issued an Order suspending the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 07-257487 and effectively deferred resolution of respondents' Motion for Reconsideration (of the Order dated 3 July 2008) pending a decision by this Court on the Petition for Review filed by petitioners. The RTC also ordered that both respondents remain in custody.[15]
On 5 November 2008, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution denying the motion filed on 10 September 2008, stating that with due deference to the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all controversies, the Court of Appeals forbids itself from declaring the 29 August 2008 Amended Decision as immediately executory.[16]
Respondents contend that, in refusing to rule on respondents' motions[17] which would grant them liberty, the Court of Appeals and the RTC have abdicated their jurisdiction to grant relief to respondents in violation of respondents' right to liberty, solely because of a Petition for Review filed by private persons before this Court.[18]
Hence, this motion.
Section 13 of Article III of the Constitution mandates:
The right to bail flows from the right to be presumed innocent It is accorded to a person in the custody of the law who may be allowed provisional liberty upon filing of a security to guarantee his appearance before any court, as required under specified conditions.[19] Before conviction, bail is either a matter of right, or of discretion. It is a matter of right when the offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion perpetua. If the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua, bail becomes a matter of discretion. Bail is denied if the evidence of guilt is strong. The court's discretion is limited to determining whether or not evidence of guilt is strong. But once it is determined that the evidence of guilt, is not strong, bail also becomes a matter of right.[20]
Section 7 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
The crime of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code imputed to respondents is punishable by reclusion perpetua. If the Information charges murder, the right to bail becomes a. matter of discretion and the grant thereof may be justified if the evidence of guilt is not strong. The constitutional right to bail necessarily includes the right to be heard on an application for bail. Parallel to the right of the accused to be heard is the prosecution's right to present evidence to show that evidence of guilt is strong.[21] These rights can only be exercised in a hearing before the trial court where the murder case is pending.
The grant or denial of bail in crimes punishable with reclusion perpetua hinges on the issue of whether or not the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong. This requires that the trial court conduct bail hearings where both the prosecution and the defense are afforded sufficient opportunity to present their respective evidence.
Section 17 of Rule 114 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
The venue for filing the application for bail in the present case is "only in the particular court where' the case is pending, whether for preliminary investigation, trial or on appeal." This Court is not in a position to grant bail to respondents as such grant requires evidentiary hearing that should be conducted by the trial court where the murder case is pending.[22] However, due to the suspension by the RTC of its proceedings on this case in its Order dated 7 October 2008, we resolve to direct the RTC to hear immediately respondents' application for bail, receive the evidence of the respective parties, and resolve. the application without further delay.
The application for bail or the admission to bail by respondents shall not be construed as an admission of the existence of probable cause. Section 26, Rule 1 ] 4 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
Thus, the application for bail or admission to bail does not constitute a waiver of the right to question the validity of the arrest or the regularity of the preliminary investigation, which issues certainly encompass the existence of probable cause The accused, however, must raise these issues before entering his plea.
Section 26 of Rule 114 is intended to modify previous rulings of this Court that an application, for bail or the admission to bail by the accused shall be considered as a waiver of his right to assail the validity of his arrest or the regularity of the preliminary investigation. Counsels for respondents' apprehension that the filing of an application for bail would be deemed a waiver of respondents' right to challenge the existence of probable cause has no basis. This section provides the solution to the dilemma, which previously confronted persons so circumstanced, provided that the accused institute the necessary actions before entering their plea.[23] The new rule reverts back to the ruling in People v. Red,[24] designed to correct defects and curb evils in procedural rules.[25]
Here, respondents have already taken the necessary actions to vigorously challenge the existence of probable cause. This more than satisfies the condition in Section 26 of Rule 114 that respondents raise the issues before entering their pica. The application for bail or the admission to bail of respondents certainly cannot be deemed in any way as a waiver' of their right to question the existence probable cause. As this Court held in Okabe v. Gutierrez:
In Serapio v. Sandiganbayan,[27] we held that "a person can file a petition for ball as soon as he Is deprived of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender. An accused need not wait for his arraignment before filing a petition for bail." We also ruled that the right of an accused to seek provisional liberty when charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, after due hearing and evidence of his guilt is not strong, does not preclude his right to assail the validity of the information charging him with offense.[28]
In Almonte v. Bien[29] we declared that the "application for bail or the admission to bail is no longer considered as a waiver of the accused's right to assail the warrant issued for his arrest as regards its attendant illegalities or irregularities."
This Court finds that there is no inconsistency between respondents' filing of an application for bail and respondents' seeking to challenge the existence of probable cause against diem. Their timely challenge to the existence of probable cause, before the Secretary of Justice and the Court of Appeals, satisfies the requirement that they raise the challenge before entering their plea. However, it is the RTC that should hear respondents' application for bail and receive evidence to determine if respondents' guilt is strong as this Court is not a trier of facts.
In Moslares v. Rosario[30] involving an accused charged for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and for estafa, this Court remanded the case to the court of origin for further proceedings where petitioner may be given an opportunity to post bail. Likewise, here the RTC should conduct hearings to determine if the evidence of respondents' guilt is not strong as to warrant the granting of bail.
WHEREFORE, we ORDER the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 32, to hear respondents' application for bail with DELIBERATE DISPATCH in accordance with law and this Resolution. This Resolution is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED. (Puno, C.J. and Corona, J., no part; Velasco, Jr., J., and Brion, J., additional members)
G.R. No. 184337 - HEIRS OF FEDERICO C. DELGADO and ANNALISA PESICO, Petitioners, - versus- LUISITO Q. GONZALEZ and ANTONIO T, BUENAFLOR, Respondents and G.R. No. 184507 - ACTING SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AGNES VST DEVANADERA, HEIRS OF FEDERICO C. DELGADO and ANNALISA D. PESICO,' Petitioners, - versus - LUISITO Q. GONZALEZ and ANTONIO T. BUENAFLOR, Respondents.
Before us is a "Motion for the Release (On Bond, If Required)" filed by respondents Luisito Q. Gonzalez (Gonzalez) and Antonio T. Buenaflor (Buenaflor) in connection with a Petition for Review dated 18 September 2008 filed with this Court by petitioners Heirs of Federico C. Delgado and Annalisa D. Pesico (petitioners) and docketed as G.R. No. 184337.
This motion is in the nature of an application for bail which can only be filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 32, where the case for murder against respondents is pending. However, the RTC suspended its proceedings on the murder case to await the outcome of this Petition for Review, precluding respondents from seeking bail before the RTC, Gonzalez is presently detained at the National Bureau of Investigation jail while Buenaflor is detained at iJbe Manila City Jail.[1]
On 11 March 2007, the police found the dead body of Federico C. Delgado (Delgado) at his residence in Mayflower Building, 2515 Leon Guinto, Malate, Manila. The police was alerted by Annalisa D. Pesico (Pesico), who allegedly was present at the commission of the crime and was likewise injured in the incident,[2]
On 1 June 2007, the Manila Police Department (MPD) filed a complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila, accusing respondents with the murder of Delgado and frustrated murder of Pesico. At petitioners' request, the case was transferred to the Department of Justice for preliminary investigation.[3]
Acting City Prosecutor of Manila Cielitolindo A. Luyun (Investigating Prosecutor) conducted the preliminary investigation and evaluated the evidence submitted by the MPD, as well as respondents' Counter-Affidavits, corroborating affidavits of 29 witnesses, and supporting documentary evidence. In a Resolution dated 10 September 2007, 'the Investigating Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause that respondents committed the crimes of murder and frustrated murder.[4]
On 18 September 2007, petitioners filed a Petition for Review with the Secretary of Justice. On 15 October 2007, then Acting Secretary of Justice Agnes VST Devanadera (Acting Secretary Devanadera.) reversed the finding of the Investigating Prosecutor and directed the filing of separate informations for murder and less serious physical injuries against respondents.[5]
On 18 October 2007, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by Acting Secretary Devanadera in a Resolution dated 26 October 2007.[6]
On. 5 November 2007, the corresponding Informations were filed. The charge for the crime of murder was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 32, docketed as Criminal Case No. 07-257487. The charge of less serious physical injuries was filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9, docketed as Criminal Case No. 441878.[7]
Thereafter, respondents filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 101196, assailing the Resolutions of Acting Secretary Devanadera dated 15 October 2007 and 26 October 2007.[8]
On 18 March 2008, the Court of Appeals, in its Original Decision, dismissed the petition.. Respondents then filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 27 March 2008.[9]
Meanwhile, on 3 July 2008, die RTC ordered that warrants of arrest be issued, against respondents.[10] On 16 and 21 July 2008, Gonzalez and Buenaflor, respectively, surrendered voluntarily to the police.[11] On 28 July 2008, respondents Hied with the RTC a Motion for Reconsideration (of the Order dated 3 July 2008).
After the oral arguments on 17 July 2008 on respondents' motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals issued an Amended Decision dated 29 August 2008. In the Amended Decision, the Court of Appeals granted the Motion for Reconsideration and ordered that the Informations charging petitioners with Murder and Less Serious Physical Injuries be quashed and dismissed.[12] The Solicitor General, who is now Agnes VST Devanadera, did not appeal the appellate court's Amended Decision which reversed her Resolutions of 15 October 2007 and 26 October 2007 when she was Acting Secretary of Justice.
On 10 September 2008, respondents filed with the Court of Appeals an Urgent Motion to Order the Amended Decision dated 29 August 2008 as Immediately Executory.[13]
On 18 September 2008, petitioners filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 before this Court.[14]
On 7 October 2008, the RTC issued an Order suspending the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 07-257487 and effectively deferred resolution of respondents' Motion for Reconsideration (of the Order dated 3 July 2008) pending a decision by this Court on the Petition for Review filed by petitioners. The RTC also ordered that both respondents remain in custody.[15]
On 5 November 2008, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution denying the motion filed on 10 September 2008, stating that with due deference to the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all controversies, the Court of Appeals forbids itself from declaring the 29 August 2008 Amended Decision as immediately executory.[16]
Respondents contend that, in refusing to rule on respondents' motions[17] which would grant them liberty, the Court of Appeals and the RTC have abdicated their jurisdiction to grant relief to respondents in violation of respondents' right to liberty, solely because of a Petition for Review filed by private persons before this Court.[18]
Hence, this motion.
Section 13 of Article III of the Constitution mandates:
Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. xxx.
The right to bail flows from the right to be presumed innocent It is accorded to a person in the custody of the law who may be allowed provisional liberty upon filing of a security to guarantee his appearance before any court, as required under specified conditions.[19] Before conviction, bail is either a matter of right, or of discretion. It is a matter of right when the offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion perpetua. If the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua, bail becomes a matter of discretion. Bail is denied if the evidence of guilt is strong. The court's discretion is limited to determining whether or not evidence of guilt is strong. But once it is determined that the evidence of guilt, is not strong, bail also becomes a matter of right.[20]
Section 7 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
Sec. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. - No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua. or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stale of the criminal prosecution.
The crime of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code imputed to respondents is punishable by reclusion perpetua. If the Information charges murder, the right to bail becomes a. matter of discretion and the grant thereof may be justified if the evidence of guilt is not strong. The constitutional right to bail necessarily includes the right to be heard on an application for bail. Parallel to the right of the accused to be heard is the prosecution's right to present evidence to show that evidence of guilt is strong.[21] These rights can only be exercised in a hearing before the trial court where the murder case is pending.
The grant or denial of bail in crimes punishable with reclusion perpetua hinges on the issue of whether or not the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong. This requires that the trial court conduct bail hearings where both the prosecution and the defense are afforded sufficient opportunity to present their respective evidence.
Section 17 of Rule 114 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
Sec. 17. Bail where filed. - (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case is pending, or, in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with another branch of the same court within the province or city. xxx.
(b) Whenever the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused seeks to be released on recognizance, the application therefor may be filed only in the particular court where the case is pending, whether for preliminary investigation, trial, or on appeal.
(c) Any person m custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail with any court in the province, city or municipality where he is held. (Emphasis supplied)
The venue for filing the application for bail in the present case is "only in the particular court where' the case is pending, whether for preliminary investigation, trial or on appeal." This Court is not in a position to grant bail to respondents as such grant requires evidentiary hearing that should be conducted by the trial court where the murder case is pending.[22] However, due to the suspension by the RTC of its proceedings on this case in its Order dated 7 October 2008, we resolve to direct the RTC to hear immediately respondents' application for bail, receive the evidence of the respective parties, and resolve. the application without further delay.
The application for bail or the admission to bail by respondents shall not be construed as an admission of the existence of probable cause. Section 26, Rule 1 ] 4 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
Sec. 26- Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary investigation. - An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or (lie legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge against him. provided that he raises them before entering his plea. The court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later than the start of the trial of the case.
Thus, the application for bail or admission to bail does not constitute a waiver of the right to question the validity of the arrest or the regularity of the preliminary investigation, which issues certainly encompass the existence of probable cause The accused, however, must raise these issues before entering his plea.
Section 26 of Rule 114 is intended to modify previous rulings of this Court that an application, for bail or the admission to bail by the accused shall be considered as a waiver of his right to assail the validity of his arrest or the regularity of the preliminary investigation. Counsels for respondents' apprehension that the filing of an application for bail would be deemed a waiver of respondents' right to challenge the existence of probable cause has no basis. This section provides the solution to the dilemma, which previously confronted persons so circumstanced, provided that the accused institute the necessary actions before entering their plea.[23] The new rule reverts back to the ruling in People v. Red,[24] designed to correct defects and curb evils in procedural rules.[25]
Here, respondents have already taken the necessary actions to vigorously challenge the existence of probable cause. This more than satisfies the condition in Section 26 of Rule 114 that respondents raise the issues before entering their pica. The application for bail or the admission to bail of respondents certainly cannot be deemed in any way as a waiver' of their right to question the existence probable cause. As this Court held in Okabe v. Gutierrez:
Moreover, considering the conduct of the petitioner after posting her person; bail bond, it cannot be argued that she waived her right to question the finding of probable cause and to assail the warrant of arrest issued against her by the respondent judge. There must be clear and convincing proof that the petitioner had an actual intention to relinquish her right to question the existence of probable cause. When the only proof of intention rests on what a party does, his act should be so manifestly consistent with, and indicative of, an intent to voluntarily and unequivocally relinquish the particular right that no other explanation of bis conduct is possible. In this case, the records show that a warrant was issued by (lie respondent judge in Pasay City for the arrest of the petitioner, a resident of Guiguinto. Bulacan. When the petitioner learned, of the issuance of the said warrant, she posted a personal bail bond to avert her arrest and secure her provisional liberty. Judge Demetrio B. Macapagal of the RTC of Quezon City approved the bond and issued an order recalling the warrant of arrest against the petitioner. Thus, the posting of a personal bail bond was a matter of imperative necessity to avert her incarceration, it should not be deemed as a waiver of her right to assail her arrest.[26](Emphasis supplied)
In Serapio v. Sandiganbayan,[27] we held that "a person can file a petition for ball as soon as he Is deprived of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender. An accused need not wait for his arraignment before filing a petition for bail." We also ruled that the right of an accused to seek provisional liberty when charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, after due hearing and evidence of his guilt is not strong, does not preclude his right to assail the validity of the information charging him with offense.[28]
In Almonte v. Bien[29] we declared that the "application for bail or the admission to bail is no longer considered as a waiver of the accused's right to assail the warrant issued for his arrest as regards its attendant illegalities or irregularities."
This Court finds that there is no inconsistency between respondents' filing of an application for bail and respondents' seeking to challenge the existence of probable cause against diem. Their timely challenge to the existence of probable cause, before the Secretary of Justice and the Court of Appeals, satisfies the requirement that they raise the challenge before entering their plea. However, it is the RTC that should hear respondents' application for bail and receive evidence to determine if respondents' guilt is strong as this Court is not a trier of facts.
In Moslares v. Rosario[30] involving an accused charged for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and for estafa, this Court remanded the case to the court of origin for further proceedings where petitioner may be given an opportunity to post bail. Likewise, here the RTC should conduct hearings to determine if the evidence of respondents' guilt is not strong as to warrant the granting of bail.
WHEREFORE, we ORDER the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 32, to hear respondents' application for bail with DELIBERATE DISPATCH in accordance with law and this Resolution. This Resolution is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED. (Puno, C.J. and Corona, J., no part; Velasco, Jr., J., and Brion, J., additional members)
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESQUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESQUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo (G.R. No. 184337), p. 151.
[2] Id. at 9.
[3] Id. at 168.
[4] Id. at 169.
[5] Id, at. 170-171.
[6] Id. at. 171.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 172.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 173.
[11] Id. at 820 and 835
[12] Id. at 172.
[13] Id. at 177.
[14] Id. at 3-54.
[15] Id. at 827-829.
[16] Id. at 839-841.
[17] "Urgent Motion lo Order 'Amended Decision' of August 29, 2008 As Immediately Executory" filed before the Court of Appeals and "Motion For Reconsideration (of the Order Dated 3 July 2008)" filed before the Regional Trial Court.
[18] Rollo (G.R. No. 184337), pp. 829-830.
[19] People v. Fitzgerald, G.R. No. 149723, 27 October 2006, 505 SCRA 573.
[20] People v. Donato, G.R. No. 79269, 5 June 1991, 198 SCRA 130.
[21] BERNAS, JOAQUIN G., SJ. TIRE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY, 1996 Edition, p. 433.
[22] Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, All Phij. 820 (2002).
[23] Yusop v. Sandigonbavan, 405 Phil. 233 (2001).
[24] Phil. 706 (1931).
[25] Okabe v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 150185, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 685.
[26] Id. at 703.
[27] 444 Phil. 499(2003).
[28] Id.
[29] A.M. No. MTJ-04-1532, 27 June 2005, 461 SCRA 218.
[30] 353 Phil. 631(1998).
