Fuentes y Roa v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 256401. November 18, 2021.]

RUDY FUENTES y ROA and ANTHONY PATRICIO y CABALLERO, petitioners,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 18, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 256401 — RUDY FUENTES y ROA and ANTHONY PATRICIO y CABALLERO, petitioners, versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

After reviewing the Petition 1 and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 2 dated August 20, 2020 in CA-G.R. CR No. 43083 and the Decision 3 dated March 3, 2019, Branch 85 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-18-05529-CR, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for failure of petitioners to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged decision as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

At the outset, the Court finds that the issues raised by petitioners pertain to factual and evidentiary matters that are generally not subject to review via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 4 In appellate review, the trial court's factual findings — including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, the probative weight of their testimonies, and the conclusions drawn from the factual findings — are accorded great respect and even conclusive effect. 5 The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the CA, 6 as in this case.

In any case, the CA is correct in affirming petitioners' conviction. All elements of the offense charged have been proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

In this case, petitioners were charged with violating the liquor ban imposed during the election period. Based on the Information, petitioners were caught drinking intoxication liquor in violation of Section 261 (dd) (1) of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, 7 which provides:

SECTION 261. Prohibited Acts. — The following shall be guilty of an election offense:

xxx xxx xxx

(dd) Other prohibitions:

(1) Any person who sells, furnishes, offers, buys, serves or takes intoxicating liquor on the days fixed by law for the registration of voters in the polling place, or on the day before the election or on election day: Provided, That hotels and other establishments duly certified by the Ministry of Tourism as tourist oriented and habitually in the business of catering to foreign tourists may be exempted for justifiable reasons upon prior authority of the Commission: Provided, further, That foreign tourists taking intoxicating liquor in said authorized hotels or establishments are exempted from the provisions of this subparagraph.

In implementing the foregoing provision in relation to the 2018 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections, the Commission on Elections issued Regulation No. 10246, 8 which reiterated the prohibition on selling, furnishing, offering, buying, serving or taking intoxicating liquor, etc., on the eve of election, May 13, 2018, and on election day, May 14, 2018. 9 CAIHTE

Thus, to sustain a conviction for a violation of the foregoing law, the prosecution must prove that petitioners in this case took intoxicating liquor on the eve of the election day or during the election day.

As aptly found by the trial court, and affirmed by the CA, the evidence of the prosecution clearly showed that petitioners were caught having a drinking session along the sidewalk of Argueles Street, Barangay Doña Imelda, Quezon City, on the eve of the election. 10 This was corroborated by the testimony of the attending physician and the Medico-Legal Slip dated May 14, 2018, which indicated that petitioners tested positive for alcohol. These pieces of evidence undoubtedly show that petitioners were intoxicated when they were arrested on May 13, 2018. 11

The Court also agrees with the courts a quo that petitioners' defense of denial must fail. Such defense, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is inherently weak and thus, cannot overcome the positive and credible evidence of the prosecution.

Verily, considering all of the foregoing, petitioners' conviction for violation of Section 261 (dd) (1) of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines must stand.

Proper penalty.

As regards the penalty, Section 264 of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines provides:

SECTION 264. Penalties. — Any person found guilty of any election offense under this Code shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than six years and shall not be subject to probation. In addition, the guilty party shall be sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. If he is a foreigner, he shall be sentenced to deportation which shall be enforced after the prison term has been served. Any political party found guilty shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than ten thousand pesos, which shall be imposed upon such party after criminal action has been instituted in which their corresponding officials have been found guilty. (Sec. 181, 1978 EC)

In relation to the foregoing, Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, 12 as amended, 13 provides that "if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same." 14 Thus, the Court finds that the penalty imposed by the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, of imprisonment for one (1) year, as minimum, to two (2) years, as maximum, is proper. The penalty should however be modified to reflect that petitioners are also disqualified to apply for probation as provided under Section 264 as afore-quoted. 15

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 20, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 43083 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Petitioners Rudy Fuentes y Roa and Anthony Patricio y Caballero are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 261 (dd) (1) of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines. Both petitioners are sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for one (1) year, as minimum, to two (2) years, as maximum, and are DISQUALIFIED from applying for probation.

SO ORDERED."Lopez, M., J.,on official leave.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA

Division Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO

Deputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 11-25.

2.Id. at 27-36. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justices Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig and Carlito B. Calpatura, concurring.

3.Id. at 53-62. Penned by Presiding Judge Juris S. Dilinila-Callanta.

4.Virtucio, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 249822, December 5, 2019, p. 1 (Unsigned Resolution).

5.People v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 219952, November 20, 2017, 845 SCRA 227, 238, citing People v. Diu, G.R. No. 201449, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 229, 243.

6.Fantastico v. Malicse, Sr., G.R. No. 190912, January 12, 2015, 745 SCRA 123, 138.

7. Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, approved on December 3, 1985.

8. CALENDAR OF ACTIVITIES AND PERIODS OF CERTAIN PROHIBITED ACTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE MAY 14, 2018 SYNCHRONIZED BARANGAY AND SANGGUNIANG KABATAAN (SK) ELECTIONS, promulgated on January 15, 2018.

9.Id. at 5-6.

10. See rollo, pp. 58-59.

11.Id. at 60-61.

12. Act No. 4103, approved on December 5, 1933.

13. AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS ONE, TWO AND EIGHT OF ACT NUMBERED FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THREE, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW, Act No. 4225, approved on August 8, 1935, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/28/14336>.

14.Id.

15.Manibog v. People, G.R. No. 211214, March 20, 2019, 897 SCRA 565, 585.