ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 139542.May 7, 2002]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. INOCENCIO GONZALES, JR.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 7 2002.
G.R. No. 139542 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Inocencio Gonzales, Jr. y Esquivel, accused-appellant.)
This refers to the Motion filed by private complainant Noel Andres, in his behalf and in behalf of his son Kenneth Andres and nephew Kevin Valdez, both minors, seeking a Reconsideration of this Court's Decision dated June 21, 2001 modifying the trial court's decision and finding appellant guilty of homicide and slight physical injuries, instead of the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder and attempted murder.
In the Motion for Reconsideration private complaint alleges that treachery clearly attended the killing of Feliber Andres and the injury of Kenneth Andres and Kevin Valdez. He argues that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength qualified the crime to murder as the appellant used a firearm, a Glock 9 mm. automatic pistol which is a special kind of gun with a special kind of bullet, against his defenseless and unarmed victims.
Appellant interposed his objection contending that the filing of a Motion for reconsideration by private complainant would place appellant in double jeopardy and that the grounds relied upon in the said motion have been passed upon and thoroughly discussed by the Court. Appellant further contends that a judgment of conviction that carries the imposition of a penalty may be modified only upon motion of the accused or at least with the latter's consent. Appellant is of the view that a motion for reconsideration may be filed only by the accused and not by the prosecution or the private complainant.
The Office of the Solicitor General interposed no objection to the filing by private complainant of the motion for reconsideration but nonetheless filed its Comment thereto. The Solicitor General opined that the issue on treachery was thoroughly and comprehensively discussed. The make and kind of the gun used becomes immaterial and assumes less significance with the finding that the shooting was clearly a spur of the moment or impulsive decision made by appellant which was preceded by a heated altercation at the instance of the private complainant. In short, it is the opinion of the Solicitor General that private complainant failed to raise new issues or any new matter which would warrant a reversal or modification of this Court's Decision.
We agree with appellant and the Solicitor General.
The purpose of private complainant in filing the motion for reconsideration is to correct the penalty imposed. Private respondent's prayer in the Motion for Reconsideration seeks a modification of this Court's decision from the finding of guilt of the appellant of the crimes of homicide and slight physical injuries to the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder and attempted murder. In effect, this would increase the penalty already imposed as private respondent is seeking for a more severe penalty. This we cannot do.
While private respondent, no doubt, has the legal personality to file a motion for reconsideration having an interest in the maintenance of the criminal prosecution, [1] cralaw the limitation is inscribed in Section 1, [2] cralaw Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (effective December 1, 2000) that "(A)ny party may appeal from a final judgment or order, except if the accused would be placed thereby in double jeopardy." To reconsider the case for the purpose of increasing the penalty would be placing the appellant in double jeopardy. This has been a time-honored and long-standing jurisprudence. [3] cralaw On this score alone, the motion for reconsideration filed by private complainant should be denied.
Finally, as correctly pointed out by appellant and the Solicitor General, the arguments raised by private complainant in his motion for reconsideration have been discussed and passed upon in the Court's Decision sought to be reconsidered. No compelling nor cogent reason exists to warrant a modification of this Court's decision.
WHEREFORE , the Motion for Reconsideration filed by private complainant is hereby DENIED with FINALITY. No further pleadings is allowed. (Justices Puno, Kapunan and Panganiban reiterate their dissent; Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez is on leave). (De Leon, J., abroad on official business.)
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA
D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Mosquera vs. Panganiban, 258 SCRA 473 (1996).
[2] cralaw Formerly, Section 2 of the same Rule.
[3] cralaw People vs. Ang Cho Kio, 95 Phil. 475 (1954); People vs. Pomeroy, et al., 97 Phil. 927 (1955); People vs. Paet, 100 Phil. 357 (1956); People vs. Ruiz, 81 SCRA 453 (1978).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
