Maghilum y Portacion v. People

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 227564. July 3, 2017.]

NILO MAGHILUM y PORTACION, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 3, 2017, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 227564 (Nilo Maghilum y Portacion, Petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, Respondent). — Petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.

After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court RESOLVES TO DENY the petition for review on certiorari for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in denying his petition for review for being insufficient in form.

The CA noted that the petition for review filed by the petitioner: (1) lacked an affidavit of service and legible copies of the pleadings and documents filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), as well as other material records of the case as required by Section 2 (d), Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) did not indicate the complete and actual addresses of the parties; and (3) had a defective jurat in the verification and certification of non-forum shopping.

We cannot be blind to the petitioner's procedural lapses because they were fundamental and serious errors. The rules of procedure regulating the essential form and content in appeals by petition for review must be strictly complied with; otherwise, the CA would not be able to determine the merits of his case and dispose of it judiciously. There is no justification that could save a petition for review deficient in form from being dismissed outright. AIDSTE

Nonetheless, even assuming for the sake of argument that the CA committed a reversible error in denying the petition for review, the merits of the appeal would still not be resolved in favor of the petitioner. Based on the records accompanying the present appeal, the Metropolitan Trial Court as the trial court and the RTC as the immediate appellate court correctly pronounced him guilty of unjustvexation instead of actsoflasciviousness because the State did not establish the attendance of lewd design. His claim that the lower courts thereby violated his right to due process, in that he had not been informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him due to the criminal complaint being for actsoflasciviousness but he was instead found guilty of unjustvexation, is unworthy of any serious consideration.

Section 4 and Section 5 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure state that:

Sec. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. — When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.

Sec. 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. — An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.

The foregoing rules allow an accused to be convicted of a crime other than the one charged against him provided that the offense charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved. The crime of unjustvexation, albeit concededly different from the crime of actsoflasciviousness, is embraced by the latter crime or is necessarily included therein. A common characteristic of the offenses is molestation of the offended party. Where the molestation is not shown to be accompanied by lewd designs, the accused may not be convicted of actsoflasciviousness but may be held guilty of unjustvexation, the lesser offense; in fact, conviction or acquittal for either offense should bar prosecution for the other offense under the rule of double jeopardy. 1 Moreover, there is no question that what controls is not the designation of the offense but its description in the complaint or information. 2 As such, the conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of unjustvexation should really be upheld.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRMS the resolution of the Court of Appeals promulgated on June 20, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR No. 38564; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.People v. Maravilla, G.R. No. L-47646, September 19, 1988, 165 SCRA 392, 398.

2.Id.