ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 125239. February 22, 1999]

MARINO HERRADURA, SR. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 22, 1999.

G.R. No. 125239 (Marino O. Herradura, Sr. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.)

This is a petition for review on certiorari challenging two resolutions of the Sandiganbayan. The first resolution dated April 16, 19961 [Resolution, Rollo, pp. 17-19.] denied petitioner's urgent motion to admit bail filed on February 21, 1996. The second resolution dated April 22, 19962 [Resolution, Rollo, p.20.] denied petitioner's manifestation which was in effect a motion to admit bail.

On February 16, 1996, the Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner of malversation, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal as minimum to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum3 [Decision of the Sandiganbayan, Rollo, pp. 9-26.]. After promulgation of judgment, the Sandiganbayan ordered the confiscation of the bail bond posted by the accused and his immediate commitment to the Manila City Jail. On February 21, 1996, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Admit Bail with Sandiganbayan, then files his Petition for Review on Certiorari on March 22, 1996 with the Supreme Court, praying for the reversal of the lower court's decision.

On April 22, 1996, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion. Hence this petition.4 [Filed on June 25, 1996.]

By resolution adopted on June 17, 19965 [G.R. No. 123847, Rollo, pp. 70-71.], we dismissed the petition for review in G.R. No. 123847, on the ground of non-compliance with paragraph 4, Circular No. 1-88.

On August 14, 19966 [Ibid., p. 86.], we decided with finality petitioner's motion for reconsideration (in G.R. No. 123847) there being no compelling reason to warrant the reconsideration sought. The judgment dismissing the petition became final and executory on December 17, 1996.7 [Entry of Judgment found in G.R. No. 123847, Rollo, p. 188.]

WHEREFORE, in view of the finality of the judgment convicting petitioner of malversation, the issue of bail pending appeal has become academic. On the other hand, no bail shall be allowed after final judgment.8 [Rule 114, Section 24, 1885 Rules on Criminal Procedure.] This case is hereby DISMISSED. This resolution is immediately final and executory.

No costs.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE