SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237951. April 3, 2019.]
RONALDO B. ABARRA, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, FOURTH (4TH) DIVISION SANDIGANBAYAN AND ADORA S. ESCAÑO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237951 — Ronaldo B. Abarra versus People of the Philippines, Fourth (4th) Division Sandiganbayan and Adora S. Escaño
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Decision 1 dated January 19, 2018 and Resolution 2 dated February 27, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division (SB) in Crim. Case No. SB-14-CRM-0436, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure to show reversible error on the part of the SB.
The Court finds that the following elements were sufficiently established to merit a conviction under Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019: (i) the offender is a public officer; (ii) the act was done in the discharge of the public officer's official, administrative or judicial functions; (iii) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (iv) the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference. 3
In view of the foregoing, considering that a Rule 45 petition is a matter of discretion and not a matter of right, the instant Petition failed to show petitioner's entitlement to the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 130-166. Penned by Associate Justice Alex L. Quiroz, with Associate Justices Reynaldo P. Cruz and Bayani H. Jacinto concurring.
2.Id. at 187-188.
3.Zapanta v. People, 759 Phil. 156, 171 (2015).