Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
EDGARDO M.
OANIA, |
|
G.R. No. 150537 |
|
represented
by his sister |
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Reyes, |
|
Present: |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., |
|
|
|
Chairperson, |
|
- versus - |
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO, and |
|
|
|
NACHURA, JJ. |
|
PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES |
|
|
|
and
FLORENCIA BRAVO, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking
to annul and set aside the Decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) dated January 31, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 58952 and its
Resolution[2]
of October 26, 2001, “insofar as it [CA] denied bail to the petitioner during
the pendency of his appeal, and to grant bail to the
petitioner.”[3]
The antecedent facts of the petition
are as follows:
In an Information dated
Petitioner posted bail guaranteed by
the surety bond of Oriental Assurance Corporation (Oriental), a domestic
corporation then holding offices in Caloocan City, Pasig City, and Escolta, Manila.
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded
not guilty. Thereafter, trial ensued.
After trial, the RTC set the Decision
for promulgation on December 7, 1999.
The notice of promulgation was served on petitioner at the address he
gave on record. The Notice was received
on November 12, 1999 by a certain Ana Pijo, who
claimed to be an aunt of petitioner.
Notices of the promulgation were also
sent to Oriental at its three different addresses appearing on record. However, the notice sent at Oriental's Caloocan address was returned unclaimed because the
corporation was no longer holding office there.
The notice sent at Oriental's
On December 7, 1999, the RTC promulgated its Decision convicting petitioner of the crime of Homicide and accordingly penalized him pursuant to the Revised Penal Code.[4]
However, petitioner was absent during the promulgation of the
decision despite notice, and his absence was unexplained. This prompted the RTC to issue an Order
directing the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of petitioner and for the
confiscation of his bail bond.[5]
On April 7, 2000, petitioner was
arrested. Thereafter, the RTC issued a
Commitment Order committing petitioner to the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City for service of sentence.
On
On May 5, 2000, the trial court issued
an Order denying petitioner's Notice of Appeal on the ground that it had been
filed out of time. The RTC also denied
petitioner's Motion to Lift Order of Arrest and to Enjoy Temporary Liberty
Pending Appeal Under the Same Bond. [6]
In its Order
dated May 15, 2000, the RTC denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.[7]
Petitioner then filed a special civil
action for certiorari with the CA contending that the presiding judge of
the RTC of Caloocan City, Branch 124, acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
issuing the questioned Orders. He
claimed that he did not receive any notice of the date of promulgation of the
judgment in the subject case and neither did he know of the decision nor
receive a copy thereof. He also asserted
that he only came to know of the Decision in Criminal Case No. C-43186 on
On January 31, 2001, the CA rendered a
Decision with the following dispositive portion:
WHEREFORE, upon the foregoing
premises, this petition is hereby partially GRANTED. The Orders dated May 5 and
15, 2000 of the court a quo are MODIFIED. The Notice of Appeal filed by
petitioner in Criminal Case No. C-43186 is given due course and the records of
the case are ordered elevated to this Court. However, the motion to lift order
of arrest is denied for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Petitioner
filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied by the CA in its
Resolution of October 26, 2001.
Hence,
herein petition raising the issues of whether the petitioner was duly notified
of the promulgation of the RTC Decision on
On June 28, 2002, and while the present petition
was pending with this Court, the CA issued its Decision in CA-G.R. CR No.
24995, entitled “People of the Philippines v. Edgardo
Oania y Mugot” which
disposed of the appeal taken by petitioner from the RTC Decision finding him
guilty of Homicide in Criminal Case No. C-43186. The dispositive
portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, above premises all considered, the judgment of the trial court contained in its assailed Decision, finding accused-appellant Edgardo Oania y Mugot guilty beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime charged, is hereby AFFIRMED. However, the penalty of imprisonment imposed on the accused is hereby MODIFIED. Accused-appellant, Edgardo Oania y Mugot is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum and to suffer all the accessory penalties as provided by law. The awards of damages by the lower court against the accused in favor of the heirs of the victim, Rogelio Bravo, are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Court
records bear out that herein petitioner did not appeal the above-quoted CA
Decision and that on
As
such, it is unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting
a moot question, as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect,
or in the nature of things, cannot be enforced.[9] The
Court will refrain from expressing its opinion in a case where no practical
relief may be granted in view of a supervening event.[10]
WHEREFORE,
the instant petition is DISMISSED for having been rendered moot and academic by
the finality of the Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 24995.
SO
ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Justice Fermin A. Martin, Jr. and concurred in by Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Mercedes Gozo-Dadole,
rollo, pp. 8-19.
[2] Penned by Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole and concurred in by Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, id. at 20-21.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] CA rollo, p. 80.
[9] Lanuza,
Jr. v. Yuchengco, G.R. No. 157033,
[10] Royal Cargo Corporation v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 465 Phil. 719, 725 (2004).