FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242062. January 23, 2019.]
PRIMROSE E. AUTAJAY, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 23, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242062 — Primrose E. Autajay, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.
The Court resolves to GRANT the Motion for Extension of Time of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on October 10, 2018 within which to file the present petition for review on certiorari.
After a judicious review of petitioner's allegations and in accordance with Rule 45 and other related provisions of the Rules of Court, the Court notes that the present Petition for Review on Certiorari (a) has a defective verification, it being based on "knowledge and personal belief and based on authentic documents in violation of Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 5, Rule 45 and Section 5 of Rule 46 of the same Rules and (b) raising factual issues.
Petitioner maintains that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner banks heavily on the fact that the prosecution was unable to present or summon a representative from the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) to testify as to the travel history of private complainant Rajesh Gagoomal (Rajesh).
Evidently, the issue raised by petitioner is clearly a question of fact which requires a review of the evidence already presented in the courts below. However, settled is the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition filed under Rule 45 1 and the reason behind such rule is that this Court generally does not anymore delve into factual matters being a non-trier of facts. The jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought before it from the appellate court is limited to reviewing errors of law. It is not the function of this Court to examine, review or evaluate the evidence all over again. As it stands, the findings of fact of the CA are considered final and conclusive and this Court will not review them on appeal. cHECAS
Nevertheless, in several cases, the Court enumerated the exceptions to the said rule, which includes, but not limited to: (1) where the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise, and conjectures; (2) where the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) where the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; and (5) the findings of fact are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record. 2
Petitioner failed to show that this case falls under any of the exceptions. The Court finds no justifiable reason to deviate from the factual findings and legal conclusion of the CA.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (Emphasis supplied)
2.Heirs of Teresita Villanueva, et al. v. Heirs of Petronila Syquia Mendoza, et al., G.R. No. 209132, 825 SCRA 513, 520-521 (2017).