FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242202. January 16, 2019.]
CASTEL VINCI ESTACIO Y TOLENTINO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 16, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242202 — Castel Vinci Estacio y Tolentino, Petitioner vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
Petitioner lost his standing in court to appeal the judgment of conviction when he failed to appear during the promulgation of the decision despite due notice. Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 6. Promulgation of judgment. — The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court in which it was rendered. However, if the conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. When the judge is absent or outside the province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court.
xxx xxx xxx
In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel.
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these Rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation, and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.
In this case, petitioner failed to appear during the promulgation of the trial court's judgment. Neither did petitioner surrender 15 days thereafter, ask leave of court to avail himself of remedies against his conviction, and state the reasons for his absence. As such, petitioner lost his standing in court to appeal the judgment of conviction. For failure of the petitioner to regain his standing in court, the judgment of conviction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 79, had already become final 15 days from its promulgation on August 8, 2016.
Considering petitioner's lack of standing and in view of the finality of the August 8, 2016 Decision of the RTC, the CA should have dismissed outright petitioner's appeal thereat.
In any event, this Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, arguments, and issues in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, and notes that it (1) lacks verified statement as to the date of receipt of assailed decision and of filing of motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision; (2) lacks proof of authority of affiants Attys. Junel Anthony Ama and Antonio Paredes, Jr., to cause the preparation of the petition and to sign the verification of the petition and certification on non-forum shopping for and on behalf of petitioner; and (3) lacks proof that a copy thereof was served on the Court of Appeals (CA).
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time seeking an additional period of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file his Petition for Review on Certiorari is noted without action.
Presiding Judge Nadine Jessica Corazon J. Fama of the RTC, Branch 79, Quezon City is deleted as party respondent in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court