ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139432. August 25, 1999]

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated AUG 25, 1999.

G.R. No. 139432 (Fidelis L. Hipolito vs. the Provincial Warden of Tarlac.)

Petitioner Fidelis L. Hipolito, through counsel, seeks the issuance of a writ of habas corpus.

In an information, dated 25 June 1991, filed before the Sandiganbayan, petitioner, in his capacity as the Municipal Treasurer of Moncada, Tarlac, was charged with "infidelity in the custody of documents" under paragraph 1, Article 226, of the Revised Penal Code. After trial, the Sandiganbayan's Third Division in a decision, dated 17 March 1997 and promulgated on 08 May 1997, found petitioner guilty in Criminal Case No. 16933 and accordingly sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of from six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty one (21) days of prision correccional as maximum, to pay a fine of P1,000.00, and to suffer special disqualification to hold any public office for the maximum period of his prison sentence. Petitioner's former counsel, Atty Pedro N. Belmi, appealed the decision before this Court via a petition for certiorari, docketed G.R. No. 135490. The petition was denied due course in the Court's resolution of 11 November 1998 and petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied with finality in the resolution of 15 February 1999. Another petition, docketed G.R. No. 137550, was filed but it was dismissed for failure to state the material dates required therefor. There was no information given whether a motion for reconsideration was filed in the second case; neither was the date of the dismissal of the of the petition stated. An examination of the records of G.R. No. 137550 would show that the petition, filed by Attys. Vicente D. Millora and Cynthia M. Peñalosa, was dismissed in the Court's resolution of 07 April 1999 "for failure to state the material dates showing when notice of the judgment, final order or resolution subject of the petition was received, when a motion for reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received to show that the petition was filed on time." No motion for reconsideration was filed in G.R. No. 137550.

In the instant petition, petitioner's new counsel, Attys. Michael V. Millora and Vicente D. Millora, prayed for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in favor of petitioner on the ground that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction to hear and try Criminal Case No. 16933. Citing almost verbatim the grounds raised in G.R. No. 137550, petitioner argues, thus:

Like the first two petitions filed before this Court, this third attempt of petitioner to assail his conviction must fail.

Petitioner has been charged with violation of paragraph 1 of Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty imposable under said paragraph is prision mayor (a penalty which is higher than prision correccional) is from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. It is misleading, therefore, for petitioner to claim that "(n)either is the charge in the Information punishable by a penalty higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years" and to further state that "(i)n fact the crime of 'infidelity in the custody of documents' is punishable only by 'prision mayor." Clearly, the Sandiganbayan is not bereft of jurisdiction to hear and try Criminal Case No. 16933.

WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. Attys. Michael G. Millora and Vicente D. Millora are directed to explain within ten (10) days from receipt of this resolution why they should not be disciplinary dealt with or held in contempt for attempting to mislead the Court.