ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 137540. September 15, 1999]

ROBELLA CLEMENTE vs. CLENIA PADILLA

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 15 1999.

G.R. No. 137540 (Robella Clemente vs. Clenia Padilla.)

Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari from the Decision dated January 27, 1999 of the Court of Appeals1 [Penned by Justice Jorge S. Imperial with the concurrence of Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Roberto A. Barrios.] in Court of Appeals-G.R. CR No. 20867.

At the outset, let it be noted that the instant petition stemmed from a criminal case for Estafa (involving an amount of P90,000.00) filed before the Regional Trial Court of Ligao, Albay, Branch 14 which rendered judgment convicting accused-petitioner of the crime of Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 2 (b) of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment of two (2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision correcional as minimum to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor as maximum, plus one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00, or a total of six (6) years. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but for the crime of Estafa through false pretense defined and penalized under Article 315, No. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code and amended the penalty imposed by sentencing her to suffer an indeterminate prison term of five (5) years of prision correcional as minimum to eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum. While "respondent" Clenia Padilla is the private complainant and victim in this criminal case, the proper and indispensable party is not the private complainant but the People2 [Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that: "The complaint or information shall be in writing in the name of the People of the Philippines against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved."] who was not, but should have been, impleaded as respondent in the present case.

Pursuant to Section 4 (Contents of Petition) of Rule 45 in relation to Section 5 (Dismissal or denial of petition) of the same Rule and Section 5 (Grounds for dismissal of appeal) of Rule 56 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition shall "state the full name of the appealing party as the petitioner and the adverse party as respondent" and the failure of petitioner to comply with this requirement on the contents of petition "shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof." Hence, on this score alone, the petition should be denied.

Furthermore, the instant petition before us is a petition for review on certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 which shall raise only questions of law;3 [Section 1, thereof.] and a review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor:4 [Section 6, thereof; under Section 9, Rule 45, the mode of appeal prescribed in Rule 45 shall be applicable to both civil and criminal cases, except in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment (see also Section 3, Rule 56).]

A perusal of the allegations in the petition would reveal that the matters raised therein involve questions of fact which would require a re-examination of the evidence submitted by the parties and the credibility of witnesses. In a 3-page petition, petitioner alleges that the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that the inconsistencies pointed out by petitioner in his brief refer to minor and collateral details only; that the inconsistencies refer to the execution of the alleged promissory notes which are the very essence of the elements of the alleged crime for which the accused was being charged; that it raised a doubt when private complainant Clenia Padilla testified that the promissory notes were already prepared when they were taken allegedly by petitioner to the borrowers for their signature and when another prosecution witness testified that the note she signed was not yet prepared when it was presented to her by accused for her signature; and that it is not in accord with human experience for Padilla to verify the matter only after three (3) months when the promissory notes allegedly signed by six (6) borrowers fell due considering that the six (6) debtors were living only twenty (20) blocks away from her residence.

We have ruled that this Court will not alter the factual findings of the trial court with respect to the issue of credibility of witnesses, which is accorded the highest degree of respect.5 [People vs. Alvarez, 267 SCRA 266; People vs. Unarce, 270 SCRA 756.] Time and again, the Court has ruled that factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are binding on the Supreme Court.6 [Willex Plastic Industries Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA 478.]

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE