FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 259479. April 26, 2022.]
REX C. BENEMERITO, ROGELIO C. BENEMERITO, JR., ROLAND CURAMMENG, ROLDAN CURAMMENG, RESTITUTO JADULCO AND JULIAN MANEGDEG, petitioners,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 26, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 259479 (Rex C. Benemerito, Rogelio C. Benemerito, Jr., Roland Curammeng, Roldan Curammeng, Restituto Jadulco and Julian Manegdeg, Petitioners, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent). — Acting on the first motion 1 for extension of time to file petition for review on certiorari, the Court resolves to GRANT the motion giving petitioners Rex C. Benemerito, Rogelio C. Benemerito, Jr., Roland Curammeng, Roldan Curammeng, Restituto Jadulco, and Julian Manegdeg (petitioners) an extension of five (5) days, as prayed for, reckoned from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition.
The Court further resolves to DENY the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari2 (1) for late filing; (2) for having a defective verification; and (3) for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in rendering the assailed Decision 3 dated June 30, 2021 and the Resolution 4 dated February 21, 2022 in CA-G.R. SP No. 163081 which affirmed the Joint Order 5 dated October 10, 2019 of Branch 19, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bangui, Ilocos Norte in Criminal Case Nos. 2677-19 to 2682-19 for murder and attempted murder.
First, petitioners prayed that they be granted a five-day extension of time within which to file a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Notably, petitioners received the notice denying their motion for reconsideration of the assailed CA decision on March 11, 2022; thus, they had until March 26, 2022 to file the petition. With the grant of the five-day extension of time, petitioners had until March 31, 2022 within which to file their petition with the Court. However, their petition was belatedly filed on April 1, 2022.
Second, even assuming that the petition was timely filed, it deserves scant consideration because apart from having a defective verification, 6 the petition failed to show that the CA erred in dismissing the certiorari petition for non-filing of a prior motion for reconsideration of the RTC Joint Order dated October 10, 2019 and for failure to show that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Joint Order.
For one, the filing of a prior motion for reconsideration is a sine qua non condition for a filing of a Rule 65 petition. The failure of petitioners to abide by this condition is fatal to their case. Let it be stressed that "the filing of a motion for reconsideration, as well as filing it on time, is not a mere procedural technicality. These are 'jurisdictional and mandatory requirements which must be strictly complied with.'" 7 This requirement allows the court to rectify any actual or perceived error through a re-assessment of the relevant circumstances of the case. While there are recognized exceptions to this rule, none of which was established here. Notably, petitioners failed to present a plausible reason for their failure to timely submit a motion for reconsideration before filing a petition for certiorari with the CA. 8
For another, petitioners failed to prove that the CA erred in finding that the RTC did not act whimsically or arbitrarily inasmuch as the evidence on record support the determination of probable cause against petitioners. The determination by the RTC of probable cause was based on the judge's personal evaluation of the resolution of the prosecution and the supporting evidence. It measured up to the standard set forth for the finding of probable cause necessary for the issuance of warrants of arrest against petitioners. 9
In light of sufficient factual and legal bases for the determination of probable cause against petitioners, the CA properly found that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Joint Order dated October 10, 2019.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 30, 2021 and the Resolution dated February 21, 2022 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 163081 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."Gaerlan, J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-7.
2.Id., pp. 22-58.
3.Id., pp. 110-126. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas and Raymond Reynold R. Lauigan.
4.Id., pp. 71-73.
5.Id., pp. 180-182. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Felix G. Salvador.
6. The verification of the petition is based only on "personal knowledge and belief, and on authentic records."
7.Corpus, Jr. v. Pamular, G.R. No. 186403, September 5, 2018.
8.Id.
9. See Maza v. Turla, 805 Phil. 736 (2017).