Baquerfo, Sr. v. People
This is a criminal case, G.R. No. 235338, Rogelio C. Baquerfo, Sr. vs. People of the Philippines, decided by the First Division of the Supreme Court on April 23, 2018. Baquerfo was previously convicted of malversation of public property by the Sandiganbayan. However, his motion for reconsideration was denied, and he failed to timely appeal the decision within the 15-day reglementary period. When he filed a motion for extension to file the petition, the period to appeal had already lapsed, and the decision had become final and executory. Thus, the Supreme Court denied the petition for late filing and failure to comply with other procedural requirements. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, and procedures regulating appeal must be strictly followed for the orderly and speedy disposition of justice.
ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235338. April 23, 2018.]
ROGELIO C. BAQUERFO, SR., petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 23, 2018which reads as follows: SDAaTC
"G.R. No. 235338 — Rogelio C. Baquerfo, Sr. vs. People of the Philippines
On August 10, 2017, the Sandiganbayan in SB-09-CRM-0002 rendered a Decision convicting petitioner of malversation of public property. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the same was denied on October 18, 2017. Petitioner received a copy of the order of denial on November 3, 2017. Under the Rules of Court, petitioner had fifteen (15) days therefrom or until November 18, 2017 within which to appeal to this Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. On November 23, 2017, petitioner filed a Motion (For Extension of Time) to file the intended petition. Clearly, when the motion for extension was filed there was nothing more to extend as the reglementary period had already lapsed. By then the Decision of the Sandiganbayan had attained finality and could no longer be assailed as petitioner failed to timely appeal therefrom. In addition, the motion for extension lacked an affidavit of service of copies of the same to the Sandiganbayan and the adverse party. Perforce, petitioner's motion for extension is DENIED.
Considering the allegations, arguments and issues raised in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the same is also DENIED (a) for late filing in view of the denial of the motion for extension; (b) for late payment of the docket and other legal fees as the same were paid only on November 23, 2017 which is beyond the reglementary period; and, (c) for failure to indicate in the verification and certification of non-forum shopping affiant's Senior Citizen Identification Number presented before notary public Atty. Chito S. Pantaleon.
It bears to stress that "[t]he right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process, but merely a statutory privilege to be exercised only in accordance with the law. x x x [P]rocedures regulating appeal as laid down in the Rules of Court must be followed because strict compliance with them is indispensable for the orderly and speedy disposition of justice." 1
Petitioner or his authorized representative is INFORMED to collect from the Cash Collection and Disbursement Division the excess payment for the legal fees in the amount of P1,270.00 under O.R. Number 0197188-SC-EP dated November 23, 2017.
SO ORDERED."Sereno, C.J., on leave; De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018. acEHCD
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Estrellado-Mainer vs. People, 765 Phil. 21, 27 (2015).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU