THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235578. September 14, 2022.]
LUCIANO CABRILLAS y DIMALIBOT, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235578 — LUCIANO CABRILLAS y DIMALIBOT, petitioner, versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. — After a review of the records and the Petition for Review on Certiorari 1(Petition), under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules), filed by Petitioner Luciano Dimalibot Cabrillas (Petitioner), the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure of the Petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. The Petition assails the Decision, 2 dated 8 March 2017, and Resolution, 3 dated 24 October 2017, of the Court of Appeals (CA), 4 in CA-G.R. CR No. 38263, which affirmed the Decision, 5 dated 22 September 2015, of Branch 39, Regional Trial Court of Oriental Mindoro, Calapan City (RTC), in Criminal Case No. CR-11-10,078, convicting the Petitioner for Illegal Possession of Firearms.
Well-settled is the rule that questions of fact are proscribed in Rule 45 petitions. 6 The Rules further require that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45 since factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari. It is not the Court's function to once again analyze or weigh evidence that has already been considered in the lower courts 7 as this Court is not a trier of facts. 8
A question of law exists when doubt or difference arises as to what is the applicable law given a certain set of facts. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. 9
As admitted by the Petitioner, the present Petition involves mixed questions of fact and law. 10 While it is equally true that relaxation of rules is allowed due to certain exceptional circumstances, none of the recognized exceptions that would allow the Court to review factual issues exist in the present case. 11
Further, the Petition invites the Court to re-evaluate the pieces of evidence and the testimonies presented before the RTC and question their appreciation. The Court is not allowed to do this in a Rule 45 proceeding.
Basic is the rule that findings of fact made by the trial courts and the CA are accorded the highest degree of respect by this Court, and absent a clear disregard of the evidence, their findings are not to be disturbed on appeal and are entitled to great weight and respect. 12
Therefore, the Court denies the present Petition for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the Petitioner Luciano Cabrillas y Dimalibot is DENIED. The Decision, dated 8 March 2017, and Resolution, dated 24 October 2017, of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No. 38263 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 12-37.
2. Id. at 39-50. Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam (now a retired Member of this Court) and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
3. Id. at 52-53.
4. Fourth Division and Special Former Fourth Division, respectively.
5. Rollo, pp. 82-88. Penned by Judge Manuel C. Luna, Jr.
6. Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) v. Villafuerte, G.R. Nos. 219771 & 219773, 18 September 2018, 880 SCRA 305, 321.
7. Miano, Jr. v. Manila Electric Company (MERALCO), G.R. No. 205035, 16 November 2016, 809 SCRA 193, 197-198.
8. Microsoft Corporation v. Farajallah, G.R. No. 205800, 10 September 2014, 735 SCRA 34, 45.
9. Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 328 Phil. 171, 179 (1996).
10. Rollo, p. 18.
11. Gatan v. Vinarao, G.R. No. 205912, 18 October 2017, 842 SCRA 602, 609.
12. Verdejo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106018, 5 December 1994, 238 SCRA 781, 784.