FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232631. April 4, 2018.]
GARRY O. BELTRAN, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 4, 2018which reads as follows: ISCDEA
"G.R. No. 232631 — Garry O. Beltran vs. People of the Philippines
The Court, after a careful scrutiny of the allegations and arguments raised in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioner to show any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals (CA) in issuing the assailed Decision and Resolution dated February 8, 2017 and June 23, 2017, respectively, in CA-G.R. CR No. 38144.
Petitioner claims that the elements of unlawful taking and intent to gain on his part were not duly proven. In effect, petitioner seeks a reexamination and reevaluation of the facts and evidence despite the finding of the CA that no error was committed by the trial court in this regard. However, it is not the function of this Court to weigh evidence anew. The matters put into issue by petitioner are purely factual in nature; and as such, not a proper subject of the present petition as only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition. The factual findings of the courts below are conclusive upon this Court especially when buttressed by evidence on record and not based on misapprehension of facts.
As the RTC and CA uniformly stated, the prosecution's evidence positively proved petitioner's guilt. Clearly, the taking of the 10 boxes of Pantene Pro V shampoo would not have been possible were it not for petitioner's indispensable acts of turning the truck around, proceeding to the vulcanizing shop and giving the keys to the back of the truck to Caneba. The intent to gain is presumed from the aforesaid acts and the fact that it was not petitioner who personally unloaded the boxes is of no moment for, in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
Lastly, the Court is duty-bound under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 10951 1 to modify the penalty imposed. Here, petitioner was adjudged to pay an amount of P18,102.00 representing the value of the stolen items. Under RA 10951, if the value of the property stolen is over Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) but does not exceed Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), the imposable penalty should be arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period. There being no mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the maximum period should be from 4 months and 1 day to 6 months of arresto mayor. Thus, petitioner shall suffer the penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor. The Indeterminate Sentence Law shall not be applied in this case since the penalty actually imposed on petitioner does not exceed one year. 2 EDCTIa
ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby resolves to AFFIRM the Decision and Resolution dated February 8, 2017 and June 23, 2017, respectively in CA-G.R. CR No. 38144 with MODIFICATION that petitioner: 1) is sentenced to serve the penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor; and 2) ordered to pay private complainant the amount of P18,102.00 which shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Court's Resolution until full payment as per BSP Circular No. 799, Series of 2013. 3
The payment of docket and other legal fees by petitioner in compliance with the Resolution dated October 2, 2017 is NOTED.
SO ORDERED." Sereno, C.J., on leave; De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on Which a Penalty is Based and the Fines Imposed under the Revised Penal Code, Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, Otherwise Known as "The Revised Penal Code," as Amended.
2. See Section 2 of Act No. 4103, as amended (or the Indeterminate Sentence Law).
3. See People vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 200081, June 8, 2016, 792 SCRA 518, 533.