SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257997. February 14, 2022.]
RUEL JUEGO y TALENTO a.k.a. "BOBOY", petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 February 2022 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257997 (Ruel Juego y Talento a.k.a. "Boboy" v. People of the Philippines). — Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated November 20, 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated July 12, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 43323. The CA affirmed the Decision 4 dated April 5, 2019 of Branch 64 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Labo, Camarines Norte that found petitioner Ruel Juego y Talento (petitioner) guilty of Homicide in Criminal Case No. 2011-2050.
The Court resolves to dismiss the petition for being filed out of time. The last day for the filing of the petition fell on August 27, 2021 considering that petitioner's counsel received the CA Resolution dated July 12, 2021 on August 12, 2021. However, the present petition was filed only on September 10, 2021; hence, it was belatedly filed. 5
In any case, the petition raises factual matters pertaining to the credibility of witnesses which are beyond the scope of a petition for review on certiorari. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised in the petition and resolved by the Court. It bears underscoring that factual findings of the trial court, more particularly its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses, are generally binding and conclusive upon the Court, especially so when affirmed by the CA. 6 While there are recognized exceptions — such as misapprehension of relevant facts that would affect the outcome of the case 7 — none of them applies in this case.
The Court, thus, stamps its approval of the congruent findings of the RTC and the CA that petitioner killed the victim, as positively testified to by prosecution witness Kenneth Paulite, who declared having seen, from a distance of about six to seven meters, that petitioner shot the victim. The imposition of the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, is proper. 8 Moreover, the order for him to pay the heirs of Rafael Ordiz y Marbida civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00 each is in conformity with the guidelines in People v. Jugueta. 9
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision dated November 20, 2020 and the Resolution dated July 12, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 43323 are AFFIRMED. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-18.
2.Id. at 20-30; penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Pablito A. Perez and Walter S. Ong, concurring.
3.Id. at 39-40; penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Pablito A. Perez and Walter S. Ong, concurring.
4.Id. at 41-51; penned by Presiding Judge Alma Balilla Operio.
5.Id. at 3-4.
6.People v. Iroy, 628 Phil. 145, 152 (2010).
7.People v. Anod, 613 Phil. 565, 572 (2009).
8.Caasi, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 243342 (Notice), February 11, 2019.
9. 783 Phil. 806, 852 (2016).