SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257710. December 6, 2021.]
MANUELITO P. JUGUETA, petitioner, vs.JOSEPH ANDREW GUTIERREZ, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 December 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257710 (Manuelito P. Jugueta v. Joseph Andrew Gutierrez). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 for being filed out of time. Records show that petitioner Manuelito P. Jugueta (petitioner) received the denial of his motion for reconsideration on August 5, 2021; 2 thus, he only had until August 20, 2021 within which to file the petition, there being no motion for extension filed before the Court. However, the present petition was filed beyond the reglementary period or only on September 1, 2021. 3
In any event, the Court of Appeals (CA), in its Decision 4 dated September 29, 2020 and Resolution 5 dated June 30, 2021 in CA-G.R. SP No. 153043, did not commit any reversible error in upholding: (a) respondent Joseph Andrew Gutierrez's (respondent) conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property, defined and penalized under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code; (b) the reduction of the penalty of fine to P200,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and (c) the award of P200,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages. 6 As correctly ruled by the CA, the purported Billing Statements and Estimate of Costs adduced by petitioner were deemed as private documents and considered as hearsay, not having been authenticated as required under Section 20, 7 Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. 8 Moreover, it bears stressing that to justify an award of actual damages, there must be competent proof of the actual loss suffered, which should be based on the amounts actually expended by the victim, or other competent proof, 9 which petitioner failed to present in this case. Further, the CA correctly affirmed the award of temperate damages in lieu of actual damages conformably with Article 2224 10 of the Civil Code, considering that petitioner had sustained substantial pecuniary loss that arose from the incident. In addition, an interest of six percent (6%) per annum on the damages awarded is hereby imposed, reckoned from the finality of the resolution until full payment. 11 Finally, it is well-settled that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court, and will generally not be reviewed on appeal absent any of the exceptions laid down by jurisprudence, 12 as in this case. HTcADC
SO ORDERED. (Gaerlan and Dimaampao, JJ., on Official Leave)."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Petition for Review on Certiorari dated August 31, 2021; rollo, pp. 3-22.
2.Id. at 1 and 5.
3.Id. at 1 and 3.
4.Id. at 26-33. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin with Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Bonifacio S. Pascua, concurring.
5.Id. at 44-45.
6.Id. at 32.
7. Section 20. Proof of Private Document. — Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be. (21a)
8.Rollo, p. 31.
9.Mariano v. People, 738 Phil. 448, 462 (2014).
10. Article 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.
11.Mariano v. People, supra note 9.
12. See Insular Investment and Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities Corporation, 686 Phil. 819, 830-831 (2012).