FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 178657. March 19, 2014.]
MACMOD ABDUL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 19, 2014 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 178657 — MACMOD ABDUL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
The petitioner was convicted of illegal possession of shabu weighing 0.06 grams in violation of Section 11, par. 3, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) under the decision rendered on September 21, 2005 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41, in Dagupan City, decreeing as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused MACMOD ABDUL y Rascal @ Mete guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Article II, Section 11, par. 3 of Republic Act 9165 and pursuant thereto, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos and the costs of suit.
The subject shabu is forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with the law.
SO ORDERED. 1
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction through its decision promulgated on January 31, 2007. 2 He is now before the Court to seek the final review.
On February 7, 2014, however, the petitioner filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review on Certiorari. 3 He accompanied the motion with his handwritten letter, 4 where he disclosed that he no longer wanted to pursue the appeal to enable him to apply for parole; that he had already all the necessary documents for that purpose except an entry of judgment regarding his conviction; and that he had tried to secure the entry of judgment, but the CA had informed him that it could not issue the entry of judgment because his counsel, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), had elevated his conviction to the Court for review. aETAHD
It appears that the PAO counsel assigned to the petitioner had thoroughly explained to him the consequences of his decision to withdraw his appeal; and that he would still persist on voluntarily withdrawing his petition for review.
Finding the Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review on Certiorari to be the voluntary act of the petitioner, and it appearing that the petitioner intelligently deliberated and decided upon the withdrawal of the appeal, the Court considers the motion meritorious.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petitioner's Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review on Certiorari; and DECLARES the petition for review on certiorari withdrawn.
Let an entry of judgment be made in due course.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 32-33.
2. Id. at 47-55; penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, with Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario concurring.
3. Id. at 94-95.
4. Id. at 98.