ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 84857.December 15, 1999]
PEOPLE vs. DELA ROSA, et al .
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 15, 1999.
G.R. No. 84857(People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo dela Rosa, et al., Rodolfo dela Rosa, appellant.)
On January 16 , 1998, a decision was rendered by this Court in G.R. No. 84857 ACQUITTING Rodolfo dela Rosa of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Explosives.
On February 26, 1998, a handwritten letter from Rodolfo Quimson, one of the co-accused of Rodolfo dela Rosa who did not appeal, was received by this Court. In his letter, Quimson asked whether the judgment of acquittal of Rodolfo dela Rosa is applicable to him.
Before resolving the issue raised in Rodolfo Quimsons letter, we directed the Bureau of Corrections on February 8, 1999, to: (1) report on whether, the decision in G.R. No. 84857 has been implemented as to Rodolfo dela Rosa and (2) to furnish us with information regarding the whereabouts of Antonio dela Rosa 1 Another co-accused in G.R. No. 84857 who escaped from the New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) but was later re-arrested.and Rodolfo Quimson.
On February 11, 1999, the Bureau of Corrections, through Assistant Julio A. Arciaga, informed the Court that although Rodolfo dela Rosa has been acquitted in G.R. No. 84857 for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Explosives, he has not yet been released from detention because he is still serving sentence for another offense, i.e., Violation of Conditional Pardon. However, his acquittal was extended to his co-accused Antonio dela Rosa and Rodolfo Quimson who were both released on August 12, 1998.
On March 15, 1999, we issued a resolution finding Rodolfo Quimson and Antonio dela Rosa entitled to an acquittal by virtue of Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court, viz:
"(a) An appeal taken by one or more several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter .(emphasis supplied)
Another co-accused in G.R. No. 84857 who escaped from the New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) but was later re-arrested.
We stated that: 'The general rule is that the outcome of the appeal taken by one of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal. The Rules, however, provide an exception, i.e., when the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to those who did not appeal."
In the same resolution, we required the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, within ten (10) days: (1) to furnish the Court with a copy of his order to release Rodolfo Quimson and Antonio dela Rosa from detention, and (2) to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for releasing Rodolfo Quimson and Antonio dela Rosa without any order from the Court.
On May 3, 1999, Director Pedro G. Sistoza, thru Atty. Roberto R. Sangalang. Chief Legal Officer submitted his Explanation denying any liability based on the following reasons: (1) he acted in good faith and merely performed a ministerial function when he signed the Disposition Form releasing Antonio dela Rosa and Rodolfo Quimson; Mr. Amado Eduardo C. Fojas, Jr., Chief of the Documents Section and Mr. Fortunato D. Ursudan, Chief of the Administrative Division were responsible for the scrutiny/analysis of all documents relative to the release of Antonio Dela Rosa and Rodolfo Quimson and non-pendency of appeal and other cases before any court.
On July 12, 1999 we issued a resolution requiring Fortunato D. Ursudan, Chief of the Administrative Division and Amado Eduardo C. Fojas, Jr., Chief of the Documents Section to comment on the Explanation submitted by Director Pedro G. Sistoza.
On September 2, 1999, Fortunato D. Ursudan submitted his comment. He contended that the release orders were prepared by the Chief of the Documents Section for his signature. He claimed that in the discharge of such administrative function (releasing inmates), there is always a presumption of regularity and order in the documents as prepared and endorsed by the Chief, Document Section. Therefore, negligence could not be solely attributed to the undersigned considering that his recommendation to release subject inmates is ministerial in nature."
On October 27, 1999, Amado Eduardo C. Fojas submitted his Compliance admitting responsibility for the release of inmates Rodolfo Quimson and Antonio dela Rosa without order from the Court. According to him, it was an honest mistake on his part when he relied on the recommendation of his subordinates to release Rodolfo Quimson and Antonio dela Rosa by virtue of Section 11(a) of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court despite the absence of any order from the Court. And, he "had not the slightest intention of transgressing into the powers of the Honorable Court."
IN VIEW WHEREOF, this Court accepts the explanations of Director Pedro G. Sistoza and Fortunato D. Ursudan for the premature release of inmates Rodolfo Quimson and Antonio dela Rosa. Amado Eduardo C. Fojas is admonished to be more circumspect in the performance of his functions with a stern warning that similar acts in the future would be dealt with more severely.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
